Neighbourhood Renewal Unit

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the purpose and annual cost of the neighbourhood renewal unit, and how many committees have been generated by it.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the purpose of the neighbourhood renewal unit is to drive forward delivery of the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal, which is designed to tackle deprivation in England's poorest communities. This financial year the costs of the central unit are expected to be nearly £7 million. The unit's work is overseen by a Cabinet sub-committee and a steering group of Permanent Secretaries from the principal government departments involved.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will take the matter seriously. I am glad that it is he who is answering the Question, because he has an enviable reputation in your Lordships' House for doing his best to look into problems. Perhaps he will look into the unit and bear in mind that complexity of organisation tends to exacerbate problems, not to solve them. The organisation has no fewer than seven divisions and 14 sub-divisions—sub-units, or whatever they are called.
	Its habit of breeding, which is endemic in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, has spread to boroughs. It may be news to the Minister that in the borough of Tower Hamlets alone there are at present 28 committees, which so far, as far as residents of the borough are aware, have achieved no concrete results. All that is being done in the name of "joined-upness". At the end of the day, the Government will be able to congratulate themselves on producing an indissoluble union between gobbledy and gook.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am more than happy to answer the noble Lord's questions. The central unit has approximately 157 staff. It is co-ordinating expenditure of hundreds of billions of pounds of central government money in the 88 most deprived areas of England. I am not saying that everything has been a success, because the unit has been going for only a couple of years, but I could read out a success list of its achievements.
	The private sector is involved—the chambers of commerce are involved in the business broker scheme—because we cannot renew the community unless we ensure that business is up and running. Crime has been reduced. Rubbish has been removed from estates. In one area, 620 tonnes of rubbish were removed from an estate, which helped to cut the dumping of cars by 80 per cent. If people know that an area is being looked after, they are more likely to look after it themselves. That is why the effort is targeted on those 88 most deprived areas of the country. There is a big success list, and those achievements are, by definition, in the 88 most deprived areas of the country.
	The unit is designed to provide safer communities and higher quality schools. I appreciate that that is not how things were done in the past, but because of past neglect—that is not an issue between us in this House—the nature of the problems is different and they require a different solution.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, how are the various projects under neighbourhood renewal initiated? Is the initiation local? Do proposals then have to be put forward to the central office and await its comment, or can they be proceeded with?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is essentially local. Local strategic partnerships are being set up, which are sometimes led by the voluntary or private sector, not necessarily by local authorities, to get decisions made at the neighbourhood level. The 88 specified areas are set out in the public prints, based on census information and indices of deprivation. We want the strategy to proceed from the bottom up. Obviously, we must be careful with the massive public expenditure involved. We are considering the grand total of government expenditure, but the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund and the New Deal for Communities alone total more than £700 million this year, and will rise to £900 million by 2005-06.
	It is essential that initiatives start locally. It requires co-ordination across various government departments to obtain value for money and ensure that what occurs is sustainable, but the scheme is not imposed from the centre—it is not a top-down exercise.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the co-ordinating role of the neighbourhood renewal unit is vital, especially to places such as Burnley, as is shown by the experience last year when an examination was conducted into the troubles of 2001? The unit played a vital role in bringing together the local authority and a local strategic partnership, which was invaluable to those people in the deprived areas of Burnley. Does he further agree that the unit should be encouraged to do as much as it can in such areas?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend is perfectly right. I do not want to oversell the unit. It is less than two years old; it was established in April 2001. Various initiatives have resulted, such as the street wardens programme. The business brokers pilot, to which I referred, was launched only last February. The fund for post offices in deprived areas was launched only last December. It is vital to maintain infrastructure, rebuild communities and give everyone involved in them, including business, confidence to invest for the future.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, will the Minister confirm what I think I heard him say: that hundreds of billions of pounds are involved in neighbourhood renewal and regeneration? Is it hundreds of billions of pounds or rather less? If hundreds of billions of pounds are involved, is he concerned that the bureaucracy involved in neighbourhood renewal and other regeneration programmes is becoming top-heavy and that the organisation so colourfully described by my noble friend Lord Peyton is becoming a little overladen?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it may have sounded like a slip of the tongue; but it was not. I have double checked that because I was looking at the figures anyway. The Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, the New Deal for Communities and the New Venture Fund are the unit programmes. I mentioned that the budget this year is £727 million, rising to £917 million. But the purpose of the central unit is to harness the hundreds of billions of pounds of central government expenditure right across the piece; to ensure that in the 88 areas identified, we receive good value for money across the piece, rather than having time-limited funds.
	There is work to be done here. There is the £700 million for the unit, but it is also responsible for ensuring that we receive value for money for the totality of government expenditure in those areas.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am not denying the existence of a very serious problem? Will he take a serious look at the existing organisation, which might possibly be rather too complicated?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I freely admit and accept that the access to various streams of funding to localities is complicated for people to understand. It can appear like a bowl of spaghetti. We are doing our best to sort that out.
	I am happy to take on board the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. However, one of the targets for the whole exercise is that within 10 years or so no one in this country should be seriously disadvantaged by where they live, which is what happens at present. That is a target and we must do something about it. It is part of the whole exercise. However, I shall be happy to look at the extra bureaucracy to which the noble Lord has drawn attention.

Tax Self-Assessment

Lord Russell-Johnston: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the operation of the self-assessment tax system is satisfactory.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, self-assessment is operating successfully. The National Audit Office, in its most recent report on income tax self-assessment in July 2001, said:
	"Our overall conclusion is that self assessment has improved the administration of income and capital gains tax. It has made assessments more straightforward and allowed a more focused approach to compliance work".
	In July 2002, the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee reported the findings of its review of self-assessment. It made a number of criticisms and recommendations and we have accepted all but one of those recommendations.

Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, the Minister has given a somewhat un-self-critical answer. Perhaps he would agree that, whatever else, the new system has been an absolute bonanza to accountants, rather less so for those who cannot afford accountants and who are intimidated by complex income tax forms. Will the Minister give some idea of how many people have been paying fines for late presentation? Will he confirm that, generally speaking, those are the people who are less able to pay? Surely it is an endemic weakness in the new system that incompetence is treated as cupidity? Is there any proposal to change the system? How many people have been paying fines and, in particular, have there been any custodial sentences?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a large number of questions. Yes, of course the Inland Revenue keeps these matters under review. I am not especially aware that this is a bonanza for accountants. Certainly I, who used to employ an accountant, can now successfully complete the form on my own and submit it before 30th September. I am therefore saving money, for a start. If that is self-interest, then so be it.
	As to the issue of whether the people who can least afford it are being penalised, yes, of course there are fines for late submission. But those fines are capped. If anyone owes less than the amount of the fine, the fine is reduced. The criteria for inclusion in self-assessment is whether the correct amount can be deducted at source; it is not based on total income. However, we are making continued efforts to eliminate from the scheme people on lower incomes who make straightforward returns. We have developed a short return form to achieve that. I am sure that there have been no custodial sentences.

Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that although I am fairly stupid I am not entirely stupid and I am quite incapable of filling in the form myself? Therefore, I have to employ accountants. Is he further aware that this year I have had to take out insurance in case they also make a mistake? The accountants must have some brains.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am always willing to come up to Scotland to help the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, fill in her forms. In a debate on this issue about two years ago, people asked for "idiot's guides". There are no idiots in your Lordships' House.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that it has been reported that this year a number of self-assessment forms have been lost in the post or elsewhere and taxpayers have been asked to re-submit. Will the Minister give some idea of the extent of the problem?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is difficult. Clearly, there is the possibility of forms being lost in the post, and the possibility that forms may simply be lost. After all, there are millions of forms at tax offices. We do not know the figure for the number of returns at 31st January this year because we have not yet reached that date. However, if I were challenged as to the numbers, there is no reason to suppose that it is different from previous years. In that case, the number is in hundreds rather than thousands.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend know how many people do not manage to submit their returns by the end of January? Perhaps I may add, as someone who does not use an accountant, that I have always found Inland Revenue staff incredibly helpful.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. We do not yet have this year's figure. In previous years, the number of people submitting forms on time—by the end of January—has been approximately 90 per cent.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, speaking of those who can least afford it being penalised, will the Minister confirm that the self-assessment system is enabling the Government to extract £3 billion a year in income tax from people living below the Government's official poverty line?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the self-assessment system does not change the rate or incidence of taxation; it simply affects the way in which it is collected.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I declare an interest, given the remark by the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston. The senior tax partner of my old firm does submit my tax return—on time, I am happy to say. This is not a party political issue. Surely, it should be a matter of the most efficient method in line with the public interest. In those circumstances—I have not read the latest National Audit Office report—what percentage of returns submitted are found to be in error? My noble friend says that some 90 per cent are submitted—although I am not sure how he can know that, given the tax evasion which, unfortunately, occurs.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord means tax avoidance, not tax evasion—or perhaps he means both. No, I do not know off-hand the number of forms that have to be sent back. I shall have to write to him. The evidence from the National Audit Office and that submitted to the Treasury committee last year by the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales are very supportive of the tax assessment system.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, if it is proved that tax offices have lost the forms, will late payers still be fined?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, certainly not. If it can be found that it is the responsibility of the Inland Revenue, there will be no fine. But, as we know from wider experience, it is very difficult to determine whether a communication has been lost in the post, or whether that is an excuse. "The cheque is in the post" is one of the most famous excuses in the world.

Hepatitis C

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest—not a financial one—as president of the Haemophilia Society.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what new help they are considering for people infected with hepatitis C by contaminated National Health Service blood products, and for the dependants of those who have since died as a result of their infection.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have enormous sympathy with those affected by this tragedy. Sadly, it was not possible at the time to make blood products free from hepatitis C. We do, however, recognise the public health importance of hepatitis C and have published a strategy to improve the effectiveness of prevention, testing and treating services for people with this virus. An action plan to implement the strategy will be produced in the next few months.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. Is he aware that last month, for the third time, haemophilia patients were notified that NHS blood products they were prescribed trace back to a donor with variant CJD; and that the Department of Health, with no tests for the disease, cannot say whether they have contracted it?
	Over 1,000 haemophilia patients have now died from the HIV and hepatitis C viruses transmitted by contaminated NHS blood products—a huge toll for a small and already stricken patient community of only 5,000. Is it not then cruelly unjust to deny those who survive the safer recombinant treatment that would remove their fear of further infection?
	Again, is my noble friend aware of the Market Research Bureau's finding that the UK now has the lowest availability of recombinant for haemophilia patients in the developed world?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for his presidency of the society. This has been a tragic event that has occurred in this country. The previous government decided that the general rule should apply in those cases: that there could not be an exception to the rule that compensation or financial help is given only when the NHS or individuals working in it are at fault. The current Government reviewed this decision by the previous government some years ago and decided that they could not move from that position.
	So far as concerns recombinant synthetic factors 8 and 9, Ministers are currently considering the case for the provision of recombinant clotting factors and hope to be able to make a decision shortly.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, what approximately is the number of people now infected in this way, and the number of their dependants as at present?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the figures that I have indicate that about 8,000 people are still living who are infected with hepatitis C through blood products and blood transfusion.

Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Government please explain to the House the difference in the circumstances of the relatives of people who have died as a result of contracting HIV through no cause of their own, and those of someone who has died of cancer of the liver caused by hepatitis C?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, these are very difficult judgments. I do not think that anyone who has gone into this matter—in the previous government or the current Government—has found making a decision in this area at all easy. At the end of the day, after careful review, we came to the conclusion that we could not make an exception to the compensation rule.

Lord Rix: My Lords, does that mean that there is a lack of conviction about the cost or about the treatment?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not believe that those are the issues that are paramount in considering this matter. There has long been a general rule that compensation is given by the National Health Service only when the service itself or individuals working in it are at fault. In this case, there has been no fault.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, what number of patients in general are suffering from hepatitis C; and is adequate treatment being offered to them, whether or not they are haemophiliacs?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the current information I have is that the prevalence of chronic hepatitis C infection may be around 0.4 per cent of the general population: that is about 200,000 people in England. Therapies are available for treatment, most notably the combination therapy interferon alpha with Ribavirin. There is also a combination treatment which includes pegolated interferon, which is currently being reviewed by NICE. There is also currently a clinical trial assessing treatment for mild disease. That is due to report later in the year.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am sorry to take up the time of the House, but I do not follow why the National Health Service has the principle of no compensation unless there is fault; whereas, every year, millions of pounds are handed out to victims of criminal activity—to those who are injured by criminals. In that situation, there is no fault on the part of the Government; in fact, many would say that there is no moral obligation. In this case, there is a strong moral obligation because the NHS has caused the trouble. Will the Minister please explain whether there is some special rule for the NHS; and, if so, what is its justification?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has raised this matter on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House. I believe that the cases are very different and they have been recognised as such both by this Government and by the previous government. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme makes payments to victims of violent crime. The scheme recognises society's sympathy with the victims of such deliberate and malicious acts of violence. I believe that those circumstances are very different from the circumstances in which the NHS provides treatment to patients.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, following on from the previous question, I understood my noble friend to refer to the issue of "fault". Given that, as the Question says, people have been infected,
	"by contaminated National Health Service blood products",
	will the Minister express more clearly how the National Health Service can say that there is no fault when its product has caused the complaint?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it was possible to eliminate hepatitis C from blood products only in 1985, when heat treatment was introduced. The cases that we are discussing, in which people were infected through blood products, relate to people who were infected before that date.

NHS: Mixed-Sex Wards

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether mixed-sex wards have now been phased out in all National Health Service hospitals.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, 98 per cent of NHS trusts provide single-sex sleeping accommodation for planned admissions; 95 per cent of NHS trusts meet the additional criteria set for mental health facilities; and 93 per cent of NHS trusts provide properly segregated bathroom and toilet facilities for men and women. A further 2 per cent of NHS trusts have works under way to deliver the required standard, affecting 32 wards, which will be completed by the end of the financial year. Overall, 98 per cent of NHS wards meet our guidelines. The remainder will comply once current PFI and other building projects are completed.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I believe that the Government have done their level best to meet their manifesto commitments and, indeed, commitments to this House and another place to eradicate mixed-sex wards from the National Health Service. Is the Minister aware, however, that some cases of which I have heard suggest that some National Health Service hospitals do not share his, and the Government's, enthusiasm? That was illustrated by the case of our late colleague, Lady Young, who was treated in a mixed-sex ward and found it a very traumatic experience indeed.
	I ask the Minister to keep on with this matter and ensure that progress is maintained and there is no slippage in what the Government obviously intend should be the policy.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I well understand the concern that members of the public have had, as patients, about having to be treated in mixed-sex accommodation. That is why the Government embarked on the strategy to remove mixed-sex accommodation from the NHS as much as possible. We have made considerable progress. There are a limited number of accommodation areas on which further progress still needs to be made, and we shall redouble our efforts to ensure that that happens.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister consider wards that consist of a number of small bedrooms with a few beds in them, some of which contain women and some of which contain men—in other words, a room full of women and a room full of men—to be mixed-sex wards? Is he referring only to Nightingale wards? Does he share the concern of many about the safety of women in mixed-sex wards, even when they are of the first type that I described—namely, a ward subdivided into smaller rooms?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand that there are sometimes safety concerns within NHS institutions and hospitals. We encourage the NHS to have a clear concern about ensuring that we have the right measures to secure safe provision for patients. As for definitions, it is acceptable for segregation to be achieved in wards that accommodate both men and women through the use of single-sex bays and individual rooms.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, the Minister talks about percentages. Will he tell us what that means in terms of numbers of patients?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Baroness what it means in terms of numbers of patients. In terms of ward numbers, however, there are an estimated 10,000 general wards in use across the NHS of which more than 98 per cent comply with single-sex accommodation guidelines. I doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, would wish us to inquire, through no doubt very bureaucratic processes, for the figures that the noble Baroness wishes to see.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I cannot rise to that challenge. I only wish that I could shower the Minister's department with compliments. I am very disappointed that I cannot.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am ever mindful of the strictures of the noble Lord. He will be pleased to know that I now head a task force in the Department of Health to reduce bureaucracy in the NHS.

Public Services (Disruption) Bill [HL]

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing Bill [HL]

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 7 [Exercise and delegation of functions]:

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: moved Amendment No. 121:
	Page 5, line 5, at end insert—
	"( ) Where a licensing committee receives licensing applications which involve its own local authority, it shall refer such cases to a magistrates' court for determination."

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Amendment No. 121 relates to Clause 7, which in turn relates to the exercise and delegation of functions of the licensing authority. Members of the Committee will recall that central to the Bill is the transfer of alcohol licensing from the magistrates to the local authority. Therefore, the Bill currently gives rise to a potential conflict of interest.
	Many, most or, perhaps, all local authorities will need to have some form of licensing, because they will run sports clubs with bars, theatres, amusement arcades or social clubs. They will have a range of activities that fall within the range of the Bill. Under the current provisions of the Bill, they will be judge and jury of their own affairs, through their licensing authority. The judgment on whether it is proper for a local authority's sports club to have a liquor licence will be made by that local authority. Currently, that is not a problem because the licensing magistrates, who are separate from the local authority, make the decision, but that separation will no longer take place when the Bill is enacted.
	The conflict of interest is surely not fair and is certainly not transparent. There is a perfectly easy way out of the situation, however. We could make a special case for those applications that concern the local authority by requiring the licensing justices and the magistrates' court to determine those licences alone. In those circumstances, the local authority's case could be heard by someone who was not connected to, or part of, that authority. In that way, fairness and transparency could be maintained. I beg to move.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I, for one, believe that my noble friend deserves some support on his amendment. One aspect of the Bill that I do not like at all is moving responsibility for oversight of the licensing law from magistrates to the local authority. That is a backward step. I hope that we shall make much more of that point on Report.
	A brief look at the Explanatory Notes shows the relationship between the licensing authority and its committee. I was going to say that the committee would be its child or its servant, but it seems that the licensing committee will be the master of the situation with very little to stem its bureaucratic habits.
	I warmly support my noble friend. I hope that the noble Baroness will not draw wrong conclusions from the fact that not everyone on this side of the Committee has been on their feet to say that the amendment deserves very careful attention. It deals with the complex and difficult relationship that will exist between the licensing committee and its parent.

Lord Davies of Oldham: There is no doubt that the Committee will have given the amendment careful consideration. As the Committee will appreciate, the straightforward fact is that there is nothing new in the proposals in the Bill. The Bill does not introduce self-licensing and self-regulation for local authorities for the first time. It is already well established in law. The Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1963 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 have given rise to no problems relating to the self-licensing of local authorities. They are well practised in this area. The Bill extends the areas in which local authorities will be asked to exercise a licensing function.
	Local government performs a multitude of functions. It is not uncommon under the current regime for one part of the licensing authority to apply to another part about a particular matter. I do not believe that there is a conflict of interest in the proposed system or that the existing legislation governing local authorities gives rise to real concerns in this area.
	The amendment would create an unnecessary complication to the licensing system, inevitably introducing additional costs. The licensing committee is required to act objectively under the measures provided by the Bill. That is safeguarded in the Bill. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I promise to read carefully what the noble Lord has said. Perhaps he will correct me if I have got it wrong. I understood him to say that a local authority can presently give itself a licence. That is all right, but he then suggested that giving the local authority the total power over licences was a comparatively minor step. On this side of the House, we do not regard it as such. I think it a major and regrettable step. I hope the noble Lord is clear about that.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I appreciate what the noble Lord says and I understand his anxieties. Local authorities are licensing authorities under existing legislation. That has given no cause for concern, as identified in the amendment, that they are obliged to be objective when exercising this authority and that from time to time other parts of the authority may bring the issue to the fore. Local authorities are used to that activity in their present licensing role. The Bill makes no change in the principle; it simply extends the areas over which local authorities will exercise a licensing function. It does not change the nature of the role they are asked to perform. That role has been performed adequately and effectively under legislation some of which has existed for 40 years. I am merely contending that the anxieties expressed have no substance.

Lord Alexander of Weedon: We are all conscious that in judicial issues the law and the courts have become ever more careful to ensure that there is not only no actual conflict of interest, but no perceived conflict of interest. As I understand what the Minister said, undoubtedly the powers of local authorities to grant licences to themselves will be extended under the Bill. Has the Minister considered situations in which that might be controversial with some members of the public who may oppose the grant of a licence by the local authority to itself? Does the Minister feel comfortable that such members of the public will consider they are adequately protected by having one half of the authority consider another half's application? Does he not think that they may perceive they are engaging in a tough labour and that there is a conflict of interest? This is a serious topic that warrants further consideration.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment. I referred to transparency in my opening remarks. Transparency is being lost here because of the way the thing is being structured. As the Minister said, this is an extension. It is an extension into a highly commercial and competitive area. We heard in earlier debates about the social consequences of the sale of liquor and extended opening hours for pubs and social clubs. There are great risks of a perceived conflict of interest if the local authority gets involved in such a highly competitive commercial situation. I do not wish to divide the Committee, but I do not find the Minister's response entirely satisfactory. I shall read it carefully and I may wish to come back to the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 122:
	Page 5, line 5, at end insert—
	"(8A) Nothing in this Act shall detract from the right of an elected member of a council that is a licensing authority under this Act to address or write to the licensing committee or licensing authority in order to make representations to them on behalf of the residents of the ward, or other electoral sub-division, or the authority which he represents.
	(8B) No elected member making representations on behalf of local residents under subsection (8A) may participate in any decision made by the licensing committee or licensing authority concerning a matter about which he has made representations to them, either in public or in private."

Baroness Buscombe: This touches on a similar subject to the previous amendment. We are concerned to confront the situation in which local councillors may feel inhibited from actively assisting residents in making representations on the grant of licences in their ward or electoral district. A local councillor might be constrained from assisting local residents because he or she was a member of the licensing authority that was to grant or refuse the licence. Any councillor worth his or her salt inevitably knows that when discharging a quasi-judicial function one must be seen to be impartial. If one supports one side or another, it will be impossible to appear to be impartial when making a decision to grant or refuse a licence which will have serious financial consequences one way or another for the applicant.
	The Bill should make it clear that a local councillor can represent residents. That is what he or she is expected to do. Local residents will naturally look to the local councillor to assist them in all matters concerning them and the local authority. Licensing matters should not be an exception. They must be able to talk freely with the local councillor at his or her surgery and that councillor must then be free to make representations to the licensing authority or committee.
	However, if the local councillor makes such representations, we feel it is important that that councillor takes no further part in the decision-making process by the licensing committee or authority. The licensing committee or authority must be impartial and must be seen to be impartial. That will not be the case if one of its members has been making representations on behalf of residents. That should disqualify the local councillor from participating in the decision-making process. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: We support these amendments and have added our names to them. The problems of conflict of interest need to be looked at. I hope the Minister will give a satisfactory response.
	I have a question that goes back to a previous amendment about the licensing committee being quorate. If a pub in the ward of a member of the licensing committee came under discussion, would it be possible for the committee to be quorate if that member had to stand down at that point, as would happen under the amendment? The Minister laughs, but I find that slightly worrying. If a board representative could face a direct conflict of interest, they might not be allowed to stand down because the committee might not be quorate. In that case, how would the conflict of interest be dealt with?

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I want briefly to add to the comments already made, and to support them. One of the important aspects of the Bill that has not been widely or fully understood is the difficulty that it places in the way of objections and objectors. It is drafted in such a way that there are extremely limited grounds for objection. For that reason the need of the local councillor, almost above everyone else, to be able to represent the objections of their constituents is paramount.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Let me clear up my indication of amusement at what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, was saying. I did not want to be discourteous; I was merely reflecting on the fact that it is his amendment that creates the problem with regard to the quorum. He is asking me whether I feel that there would be difficulties over the quorum, but I will seek to resist the amendment, thereby solving all such problems so far as concerns a particular councillor making representations. I do not have a direct answer to the point that he raises, but that indicates that the nature of the amendment creates difficulties for the legislation. That is why I will resist it.
	I share with all Members of the Committee the concern graphically expressed in this short debate on the role of local authorities and councillors. It is entirely reasonable that elected members should be able to write to the licensing authority or raise matters on behalf of the people whom they represent. I merely wish to assure the Committee that nothing in the Bill prevents that. In fact, the Bill defines interested parties in several places, including as local residents and their representatives. That would clearly cover local councillors.
	I do not believe, therefore, that there is any need for the first part of the amendment. I seek to give the assurance that we recognise that a proper role is to be played by the elected councillor for a ward in which the issue crops up and for which representations need to be made.
	The second proposed subsection, which raises the issue of conflict of interest and would prevent councillors taking part in a decision that they had made representations about to the licensing committee, is also entirely unnecessary. As we have already discussed, elected members are already under certain duties related to conflict of interest.
	The Bill does not raise issues of conflict of interest anew. Local authorities have many powers that relate to the proper action of the councillor when there might be a conflict of interest, which is either declaring it or, in certain circumstances, not participating because he identifies it as of such significance and magnitude that he or she ought to be inhibited from participating. We already have that in legislation. The Bill merely seeks to extend an area of responsibility for local authorities, but does not change in any way, shape or form the role of local councillors or their obligations in such circumstances.
	It is not that I do not share the anxieties raised about the proper conduct of local councillors; I merely say that they are dealt with in legislation and in the nature of the roles that councillors play across their activities as local authority representatives. The Bill raises nothing specific on the matter. That is why, although we respect the arguments made, we do not think it necessary to put the obligations in the Bill. That is why I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Lord Redesdale: Perhaps the issue that I was trying to enlighten myself about was that of conflict of interest. I am particularly concerned about small authorities with small quorate memberships. The Minister said that he would not address that question, but that is our particular question. If there is a conflict of interest and the licensing authority is small, does that mean that that member cannot stand down? Would they then just say, "I have a conflict of interest on this issue"?

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord comes back to the point, so I shall address it a little further. Clause 9 clearly identifies a role for the licensing committee and enables it to regulate its own proceedings, and provides for regulations to prescribe proceedings including the quorum of the meeting. In an earlier debate, we identified particular issues where the authority might be so small that the whole authority was the licensing committee. Such a local authority could not conceivably act in circumstances where everyone had to be present and correct in order to form a quorum if it also had a rule that indicated that someone could not be there to count as far as a quorum was concerned because there were proceedings and requirements for a councillor to withdraw and not be present.
	The majority of councils will not be in a situation in which the whole authority is the licensing committee, so the issue will not arise for the majority of them in quite that form. It will be necessary for those councils involved to act in such a way to be able to protect their proceedings, to ensure that they can make progress.
	Such councils need to do that on a range of other activities. Local authorities are planning authorities, and the issues of conflict of interest can come up in those and a whole range of activities in which local authorities get involved. Where those issues crop up, they have conducted themselves sensibly, intelligently and to the satisfaction of the nation. We pride ourselves that, on the whole, most local authorities are above reproach as regards such issues. By heavens, we rely on our ever-vigilant press, not to say our elected representatives, to bring to the attention of their locality and the nation any infringement with regard to conflict of interest. That has gone on for all the years in which local authorities have been governed by the legislation that I quoted on an earlier amendment. All that I am saying is that the measure does not need such provision in the Bill.

Baroness Buscombe: I am somewhat disappointed by the Minister's response. As I made clear, we are talking about a quasi-judicial function. I hear what he says in relation to the role of local councillors, and the responsibilities to be impartial that they take on when they become local councillors. However, we are talking about issues that often involve huge financial implications either way. We feel that the amendment would be a helpful compromise, if I may put it that way, with regard to the need to win the hearts and minds of those who feel passionately that we should not move from a licensing system that is dealt with largely by magistrates to one involving local authorities because, as I mentioned at Second Reading, of the need for that "not in my backyard" approach.
	From experience some years ago as a district councillor, I know that there were occasions in relation to planning matters where it was perfectly in order and normal for ward members to have not only to declare an interest, but remove themselves from the decision-making process. That is a quite common situation across the country on different councils that choose to take that sensible approach, whereby proper representations can be made.
	I am glad that the Minister made it clear that there was no need for our concerns in relation to the amendment, and that those representations could be made by individuals to their local authorities and councillors without fear of any partiality within their own wards. However, we feel that this is a good opportunity for the Government to encourage councillors to consider removing individuals on a committee if the decision in relation to a particular application impinges on an application in their ward. I heard what the Minister said and we shall consider his comments with care.
	We feel that the problem is made worse by the Government's refusal to reconsider the need to have all members of a licensing committee present. The Government should consider being more flexible in that regard. As we have already indicated, we will probably return to that on Report. If there was more flexibility in terms of the numbers sitting on a licensing committee from council to council, this sensible compromise could be practically applied. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
	On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I understand that my noble friend Lord Brooke has been restrained by his modesty from repeating his arguments, valid as they were, because he spoke to the point earlier. I should not like the Minister and her advisers to think that objections to the clause have been entirely dealt with in view of my noble friend's shyness.

Clause 7 agreed to.
	Clause 8 [Requirement to keep a register]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 124:
	Page 5, line 10, after "certificate" insert "and all relevant contact details that the Secretary of State may by regulation require"

Baroness Buscombe: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 125 to 128.
	Amendments Nos. 124 and 125 deal with the register that the licensing authority is required to keep containing all relevant licensing details. My first thought is that the clause is over-regulatory and prescriptive in the extreme. It is obviously important and in the interests of clarity, efficiency and consistency for each licensing authority to have a comprehensive register base that contains certain details by default. Yet we need to strike a balance between imposing an administrative burden on local authorities and making the system run smoothly and effectively.
	Amendment No. 124 reflects the principle behind the first group of amendments to which I spoke this afternoon. I believe that personal licences should be held within a central register administered by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. That will reduce costs to the local authority by absolving it of the need to track personal licence holders. With these amendments, we are not trying to take away the authority to run the licensing system which has now rightly been given to local councils. If there is a central authority administering personal licences, it will also ensure that individuals cannot reapply for a new licence when they have suffered sanction or endorsement of their existing licence. The police will have easy access to a nationwide record of licencees.
	Amendment No. 125 is also an attempt to limit the administrative burden and paperwork for local authorities. We will later argue that the requirement to display a designated premises supervisor on the face of the premises licence is unnecessary. In mitigation of that, we accept that it is important that all appropriate contact details are available to the licensing authority and police service. Those details should be attached to the local authority register and changed through simple notifications as and when circumstances alter.
	I turn to Amendment No. 126. Clause 8 imposes a requirement on licensing authorities to keep a register containing a record of all licences granted and many other matters, including those mentioned in Schedule 3 and such further information as may be prescribed. That will be a fairly onerous task. However, subsection (2) will give the Secretary of State power to make regulations as to the form of the register and how it is to be kept. That seems to us to be an unwarranted interference by central government in local government. It is all very well to impose an obligation on a local authority to keep a register. We go along with that. However, to tell it how to keep that register is going too far. I hesitate to criticise the Government for being control freaks but there comes a point when central government must trust elected local representatives. Telling them how to keep the register is going too far.
	On Amendment No. 127, we are concerned about the cost to licensing authorities of the Bill. The expense of carrying out licensing functions is going to be significant. It is very important that carrying out those functions is as cost neutral as possible and, as and when an expense is identified, it is important to give the licensing authority power to recoup that expense in some way or another.
	Under subsection (3) of this clause the local authority is under an obligation to provide facilities for inspection of the register by any person during office hours. That will inevitably have a cost because a room must be made available and there must be some person to supervise inspection. That must be paid for and we believe that a local authority should have the power to insist on such payment as is necessary to cover the expense of allowing anyone to inspect the register. We wonder whether the Government have considered that aspect and would be interested in their response to it.
	Turning to Amendment No. 128, anyone wanting to know the details of a premises licence must first ascertain the address of the premises, then try to ascertain the relevant licensing authority—the boundaries of which may be unknown to this person—and must then try to find out where the register is. That could take hours of otherwise productive time.
	The position is much more difficult in the case of a personal licence because anyone wanting to know the details of a personal licence must find out where the holder of the licence lived when he first applied for such a licence. He will have to search every register. We therefore feel that it is appropriate that the Secretary of State should make the appropriate arrangements for there to be a separate register but trust to her good sense as to the way in which the information in the register will be available on, for example, the Net. If, however, there was a central register accessible online, that information would be available with a few clicks of a mouse. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: I rise to support these eminently sensible amendments, which have severe implications in terms of the costs to local authorities of implementing the Bill. We support the amendments in particular because—this was raised earlier—the licence will be financed by a cost-recovery system. As I understand it, if the system for imposing the licence is extremely expensive, that will make personal licences extremely expensive. I seek some guidance from the Minister on that issue because it would have severe implications for the proposed costs set out in the White Paper for personal licences. These sensible amendments go to the heart of the Bill, which involves deregulation. We believe that they address one of the problems that has cropped up in the Bill; that is, that it has become more complicated between the publication of the White Paper and the drafting of the Bill. It need not be so complicated. If the Minister does not consider this issue closely, I hope that the noble Baroness will return to it at the next stage.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am glad that my noble friend drew attention in Amendment No. 126 to Clause 8(2). We have over many years got used to central governments treating local authorities with increasing contempt. Is it really necessary for Ministers or Secretaries of State to spend their time directing local authorities not merely to keep a register but how and where to do so? It really does seem absurd. Not all local authorities are as moronic as central government seem to believe. One of the reasons why people get fed up with and withdraw from local government is because they are not given any responsibility.
	I am not making a party point; there was a time when I complained about the way in which some of my noble friends made a habit of filleting local government. Here is another Government telling local authorities how to blow their noses or, if they are to have a dog, to keep it in a kennel. It should not be necessary to give such minute directions as are apparently contemplated to sensible and capable authorities. If I have missed an explanation for this subsection I would be interested to hear it.

Lord Avebury: I hesitate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, because he knows so much about these matters. However, there is an argument for proposing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has in one of her amendments, that if the registers were kept in a form accessible via the Internet it would be much easier for people to find them. If people have to go to the local authority offices where the register is held, they will have to find out first which office it is and who they will have to ask to obtain the information. If the registers are in a prescribed form on the Internet, everyone will know how to access them and it will not make any difference whether they live in Durham or Bodmin; the way of obtaining information via the Internet will be identical.
	So there is something to be said for the noble Baroness's suggestion in Amendment No. 128 that the Secretary of State should, under subsection (6), arrange for the duties to be discharged by having one or more central registers common to all local authorities in terms of method of access even though the information may be collected by individual local authorities in whatever way they choose. The information must be the same so that it can be fitted into the software to enable anyone to have access to it. That is paramount, because it is essential that members of the public who need this information are not put to great trouble in obtaining it.
	Amendment No. 128 is inconsistent with Amendment No. 126 seeking to leave out subsection (2), because prescription will be required if the Secretary of State is to ensure that the data are harmonised and presented in a single medium on the web.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for presenting an argument that substantially accords with that I intended to propose on how prescriptive one needs to be to local authorities. We share the view that a national register would be desirable. It would provide ready access to the information, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, indicated. It would assist in ensuring conformity across the country and it has many obvious advantages.
	Our problem is how to get from here to there. We are rightly wary of suggesting that we should prescribe that the Secretary of State creates a national register before the legislation can be implemented, given the difficulties that we know exist with regard to compiling an extensive database of such complexity across the country. We propose working towards the national register by building it up over a period of time. That is why it is right that local authorities should have the primary obligation as the licensing authority to collect the data. However, a minimum of prescription is needed, not to tell local authorities how to blow their noses, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said, but to ensure that they record the information in such a way that we can build up the national register from local achievements.
	The prescription is merely to seek a standardisation in the form. Our local authority colleagues share that aspiration. There are trials taking place among a group of local authorities of licensing online, a prototype integrated licensing system under the aegis of the Local Government Association, using funds from the Invest to Save budget. We hope that this work will be a pointer to obtaining the information in a manageable—and, crucially—publicly accessible form so that the register can fulfil the role defined for it.
	That is the basis on which we say that to demand a central register at the moment the legislation receives Royal Assent and is implemented is asking too much, but we will work towards that objective against a background where the local authorities will enjoy, as the licensing authority, the responsibility for developing the information in such a form that would guarantee that it can be included in the national register in due course. Therefore I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Redesdale: Before the Minister sits down, two issues spring to mind: first, the development costs of such a register will be substantial. Will it be a self-recovery system so that the development costs for setting up the register on a local basis will be met by the local licence holders? That will lead to a variation in the costs if it costs more to set up a local register in one area than in another. Secondly, we support the Minister's argument about premises licences, but I hope he will address the fact that the same argument cannot apply to personal licences, which are not fixed in one locality.

Lord Skelmersdale: Before the Minister replies, the contiguous point is that since magistrates' courts are already the licensing authority, I presume that they have registers which they could pass across to local authorities, which would speed the process up no end.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful for that helpful suggestion. We are clearly not starting from the year dot with the legislation, but are seeking to develop a new licensing system on the basis of the information already obtained. We have much further to go under the Bill's provisions for more extensive information. I return to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about access to such information; that is why we are seeking for it to develop in such a form.
	The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about costs. We are seeking to ensure that there are not additional costs to local authorities. We have said that the costs involved in operating the licensing system will be met by the fees levied. That will take into account the development of the register. There is no intrinsic reason why a sophisticated system of intelligence gathering properly applied should be more costly than a rudimentary system, which can be costly for local administration because it does not use the information technology available. The point of the central position is to seek to give guidance on how local authorities can most economically and effectively be involved in the development of the information. The issue of costs ought not to be irksome to the local authorities.
	We are seeking to avoid a situation where the local authority has to work out almost from first principles every detail of the information that they need to garner. We are seeking to give them clear guidance from the centre on that which is required, consistent with the requirement of the legislation, in order to ease the burden on local authorities so that each one of them is not involved in a fresh exercise. That is why I made reference in my earlier remarks to the fact that activities are taking place already among a group of local authorities to see how the information can be garnered and integrated in order to keep costs to the absolute minimum.

Lord Avebury: There is a point which needs to be clarified. Will the Secretary of State be responsible for the development of the software, the database and the access software, or will there be a consortium of local authorities? If that is so, how is that consortium to come together? For example, it is not a matter which the LGA would normally have undertaken. However, if it is to be undertaken by the Secretary of State, would there not have to be some power in the Bill to precept the capital costs involved?

Lord Davies of Oldham: No. I can respond to the noble Lord by now giving some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that we are not expecting that the Secretary of State will set out a series of stipulations, particularly as regards the most cost-effective measures, and impose that on local authorities, assuming that the Secretary of State was so all-knowing as to be able to carry out that activity. Here is an issue on which it is quite clear that in the first instance local authorities will take responsibility as the licensing authorities. Very intelligently, they are already setting up processes. A group of local authorities is coming together for a pilot study on the way in which they could most effectively develop a system for the collation of this information.
	The Secretary of State will inevitably act benignly in support of systems which prove to be effective. The local authorities will take responsibility for this. It will not be the first time that local authorities have taken responsibility for developing systems which are common to a number of them, or even all of them, rather than being dictated to by Whitehall.
	I have tried to reassure the noble Lord that the Secretary of State will have a very clear interest in seeking to reassure himself that the information, and the way in which it is garnered, does not create such terrible inconsistencies between local authority approaches to this matter as to completely inhibit the eventual development of the national register to whose value he has already attested.
	Amendment No. 124 would require the licensing register to record personal contact details as may be required by the Secretary of State. The Bill, as drafted, contains the power for the Secretary of State to prescribe matters other than those on the face of the Bill, which must be kept on the licensing register. These matters may well include the kind of information suggested by the amendment. I am not hostile to the intent of the amendment, but merely indicate that Amendment No. 124 may not be necessary. I do not believe that there has been a clash of significant principle in the Committee on the register. I hope that I have given assurances that enable noble Lords to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Buscombe: This has been a worthwhile debate because clearly we need to understand a little better the Government's thinking behind the requirement to keep a register. There is definitely considerable agreement in terms of the principle of keeping a register which can be applied as uniformly as possible across the country. That makes sense. In that case, if the Government are clear that we want to avoid inconsistency, I question why the Bill is not a little more straightforward. Under Clause 8(2) why should not the Bill say,
	"Regulations shall require a register kept under this section to be in a prescribed form and kept in a prescribed manner"?
	Under Clause 8(6) we have suggested an amendment that,
	"The Secretary of State shall arrange for the duties conferred on licensing authorities".
	The Government are clearly not keen to be seen to be too forceful on the face of the Bill as regards how the register should be kept. I wonder whether that is because they want to avoid the question of costs. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for pointing out the question of costs because it is clearly something that is terrifying the industry. The Government have said that the local authorities will not incur additional costs. The industry itself is very much concerned about the costs that will fall on it in setting up these systems and administering them.
	I read the Government's response as being, "We are not quite sure that we want a national system up front because we would have to pay for it. If we start with a system from the local authorities and build upwards, that way we avoid the cost of setting it up, but we can, if we feel like it, and when we like, prescribe how it should be administered and what form it should take". If the Minister is clear as to how this matter should be developed, the Government should be a little more up front, a little clearer in the Bill, as to what is expected. I believe that we are going to have some pretty robust debates in relation to the fees before the Committee stage is complete because it is very hard to believe that it will not add enormous cost for whoever has to pick up the tab. At the moment it appears that it will be the industry. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 125 to 128 not moved.]
	Clause 8 agreed to.
	Schedule 3 agreed to.
	Clause 9 [Proceedings of licensing committee]:
	[Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 not moved.]
	Clause 9 agreed to.
	Clause 10 [Sub-delegation of functions by licensing committee etc.]:
	[Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 not moved.]
	Clause 10 agreed to.
	Clause 11 agreed to.
	Clause 12 [The relevant licensing authority]:
	[Amendment No. 133 not moved.]
	Clause 12 agreed to.
	Clause 13 [Authorised persons, interested parties and responsible authorities]:

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: moved Amendment No. 134:
	Page 8, line 3, at the end insert—
	"( ) any other person who, in pursuance of arrangements made with the licensing authority, is so authorised, and any employee of such person,"

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: In this instance, Amendments Nos. 134, 137, 281 and 284 pick up the same subject, but in relation to clubs as against licences for premises. The amendment is designed to enable the employees of contractors, or other third parties, to exercise the functions of an authorised person, for instance, rights of entry. In the absence of such an amendment it would not be lawful for a local authority to delegate such functions to a third party.
	This part of the Bill is unnecessarily restrictive at present because it prevents local authorities from contracting out functions, which many seek to do. I believe that it is a commonplace throughout this House that increasingly over the past 25 years local authorities have contracted out functions. I adverted on a previous occasion to the fact that the department sponsoring the Bill did not seem wholly familiar with some of the changes that have occurred in local government in the course of the past 10 years. The Bill as drafted would prevent any such contracting out and the amendments are intended to address that issue.

Baroness Blackstone: Clause 13 sets out those who are authorised persons, interested parties and responsible authorities in relation to premises licences for the purpose of the Bill. Clause 68 makes similar provision in respect of club premises certificates. The categories of authorised persons are identical. Authorised persons are given certain powers under the Bill for inspection purposes. For instance, Clauses 58 and 94 provide that authorised persons may enter a premises to inspect it when an application for a premises licence has been received in respect of those premises. Clause 174 provides authorised persons with the authority to enter a premises with a view to seeing whether a licensable activity is being carried on and in accordance with an authorisation.
	Authorised persons do not, however, have exactly the same powers in respect of licensed premises operating under club premises certificates as those operating under premises licences. The power that I have just described, for instance, does not apply when a premises is used under the authority of a club premises certificate only.
	The amendment would extend the persons defined as authorised persons to include any other person authorised by the licensing authority and their employees. The powers of inspection and entry in the Bill, which are necessary to support and monitor compliance with its provisions to ensure that we have a fully effective and efficient licensing system, are by their very nature intrusive. Those powers are essential, though, for the success of the system but we must make sure that only those who are needed to supervise and inspect the system—that is, professional experts—have those important powers along with the police.
	The right of entry provided by Clause 174, for instance, should only properly be exercised by local authority officers who have been authorised or by the police. It would not be appropriate to allow licensing authorities to subcontract third parties to exercise powers of that nature. Although I accept the noble Lord's remarks about the development of subcontracting in many other areas, I am advised that local authorities do not wish to subcontract in this area.
	A licensee whose premises might also be his home would be reasonably comfortable about letting a local authority officer who had a recognised role inspect the premises but the licensee might not feel the same about someone working for a private company operating under contract. Similarly, I would not want to see a licensing authority engaging a private company and providing it with the power to enter premises to see whether the appropriate safeguards were in place for the activities being carried out there.
	I do not believe that the amendments are appropriate and I hope very much that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw them.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am grateful to the Minister for the spirit of her reply and the fullness of the detail she set out. I shall read her remarks carefully before we return to these matters on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount Falkland: moved Amendment No. 135:
	Page 8, line 10, leave out "statutory functions" and insert "legal powers"

Viscount Falkland: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 153. Clause 13 refers to the statutory functions or duties of local authorities but clearly they have many other duties and functions that arise under common law or the European Convention on Human Rights—such as control of nuisance. Local authorities also have powers that become duties where it falls upon them to take action in respect of licensed activities—using powers conferred on them from whatever source.
	The amendment seeks to increase the accuracy of the reality of the situation by using the words "legal powers", which include all those duties, rather than "statutory functions". Amendment No. 153 follows on. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: The noble Viscount may be reading more into Clause 13(2)(d) than is there. That subsection simply describes an environmental health officer—nothing more. By including that officer in the definition, such officers are conferred with the powers of an authorised person for the purposes of the Bill.
	Substituting "legal powers" for "statutory functions" would not alter that and might be confusing by departing from an accepted definition of that official. The same point applies in respect of Clause 68. Local authorities and their officers may only exercise the functions that have been conferred upon them. Against that background, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Viscount Falkland: I thank the noble Baroness for addressing the points that I raised. I understood exactly her remarks but I am not sure that I understand many of the implications. I shall not go further today but I wish to consider the Minister's reply against the advice that I have received and perhaps return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount Falkland: moved Amendment No. 136:
	Page 8, line 12, at end insert ", the prevention of crime and disorder, ensuring the safety of the public and protecting children from harm"

Viscount Falkland: The clause refers only to the statutory function to control the risk of pollution. I referred in my previous amendment to the prevention of nuisance as being one of the licensing objectives. Local authorities have both statutory and non-statutory duties with respect to the other licensing objectives. It is important that they are able to perform those functions with respect to their licensing duties. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: I support Amendment No. 136. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 150 and 151 and the consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 297 and 298.
	As to Amendments Nos. 150 and 297, at present when a local authority considers an application for a new public entertainment licence or a variation to a licence, it will have before it a report in which local authority officers will set out any grounds for objection or representations. These may come from the district surveyor, environmental health, or from the licensing officers themselves. As the Bill is drafted, relevant representations, which we have already mentioned, would be able to be made only by interested parties and responsible authorities.
	Clause 13(4)(d) provides that a local authority can be a responsible authority, but only in respect of certain narrowly defined functions, including environmental health. What is not included are the important functions which the local authorities now carry out under the Crime and Disorder Act in combination with the police. It is only right that given the links between alcohol and crime, the local authority should be able to make relevant representations in respect of its duties under the Crime and Disorder Act.
	I turn to Amendment No. 151 and its consequential Amendment No. 298. The local weights and measures authority carries out important consumer related functions in relation to licensed premises and as such it should not be precluded from being able to make relevant representations in respect of licensing applications. If, for example, it has been found that an unscrupulous owner of licensed premises has been selling short measures, it is surely only right that the local weights and measures authority should be able to make representations if that person applies for a new licence elsewhere, and, more importantly, it should be able to apply for a review of an existing licence under Clause 50.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I support the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and my noble friend Lady Buscombe. The common cause between the two sets of amendments is the prevention of crime and disorder. The concepts that lay behind the Crime and Disorder Act had been contemplated by the previous government before 1997. However, I am the first to say, certainly on the basis of local experience in inner London, that we have been considerable beneficiaries of the Crime and Disorder Act. The degree of collaboration and co-operation between local police and local authorities in central London in dealing with a whole series of problems, and the fact that this power would be extended by the amendments powerfully recommend them.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope to persuade the Committee that all of the objectives of these amendments are already covered by the Bill, but in order to do so I shall refer briefly to the definitions mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, when speaking to a previous group of amendments.
	An authorised person is a person who is given powers of entry, inspection and, in the case of an officer of a licensing authority, enforcement. An authorised person is also charged with monitoring compliance with any conditions or restrictions attached to licences or certificates. An interested party is a local resident or residents' association or local business or trade group that wants to make representations about applications or apply for a review. Responsible authorities are expert bodies which will be able to make representations often amounting to a recommendation or objection to applications or to seek a review. The complaints or objections of the interested parties and responsible authorities must be relevant to the licensing objective.
	When we add to the list of authorised persons, as some of these amendments seek to do, we must remember that we are adding to the people who have access to premises for inspection and to investigate breaches. We suggest that we ought to be cautious about doing that. Licence holders and qualifying clubs are engaged in legitimate business. We should not lightly add to their burdens by letting any group have this kind of access. When we add to the interested parties and responsible authorities, we add to the bureaucracy of the system. I know that the Committee is anxious to avoid that. The more responsible authorities that become engaged, the more paperwork there is. The burden falls on industry and on any authority that we involve. The costs have to be recovered through licence fees. We must be absolutely certain that involvement is absolutely necessary.
	Among authorised persons we do not include the police because they already have the many necessary powers of entry. Where there is any doubt the Bill refers to them by using the term "constable" rather than "authorised person". We include any local authority or officer authorised by the licensing authority for the purposes of the Act. We include the fire authority and those entitled to inspect on issues related to health and safety. We include environmental health officers and those responsible for the safety of passengers on boats and ships. We can prescribe others if we want to.
	Among responsible authorities we include the police, the fire authority, those responsible for health and safety, environmental health officers, licensing authorities in whose area the premises also lie if they are in more than one area, navigation authorities in the case of boats and other more specialist authorities. This is a comprehensive list. We do not include the licensing authorities themselves as they will receive the objections and decide on their merits. We would not wish them to be judge and jury. Therefore, the responsible authorities are intended to include technical and professional experts. That includes the local authority acting as the environmental health authority. The Secretary of State can add to the list by regulation.
	Amendments Nos. 151 and 298 in Clauses 13 and 68 seek to add trading standards officers to the list of responsible authorities. When considering the licensing objectives in connection with an application to grant or vary a licence, the issues of crime and disorder are primarily for the police. Those concerning health and safety are for local authorities and, in special circumstances, for maritime agencies and the Health and Safety Executive. Those concerning nuisance are for the police, the local authorities and local people. Those concerning children would engage them all.
	So there really is comprehensive coverage of those whom it is necessary to include in the definitions of "authorised person", "responsible authorities" and "interested parties". Trading standards officers are mentioned in the Bill in connection with test purchasing, for example, when they send minors into licensed premises with the intent to purchase alcohol. Then they can pursue prosecutions. That is done in collaboration with the police. If trading standards officers want to initiate a review they have only to pick up the phone and speak to their colleagues in the police. On the issue of crime, it is sensible that they should speak with one voice. Therefore, we do not need to include trading standards officers.
	Amendments to the definition of "authorised person", local authority officers responsible for statutory functions relating to crime and disorder, public safety and protecting children from harm are covered in Amendments Nos. 136 and 283. Amendments Nos. 150 and 197 add those with statutory functions relating to crime and disorder. We are now talking about the officials who along with the police will be given powers of entry, inspection and enforcement for licensing purposes. We are not talking about statutory consultation. "Authorised person" includes an officer of a licensing authority, which means the local authority that is authorised by the authority for the purposes of the Bill. In terms of entry, inspection and enforcement, the licensing authority can authorise any local authority officer to act for it for the purposes of the Bill. These amendments are therefore unnecessary.
	I hope that I have covered all the ground in this set of amendments. I hope that I have given adequate assurance that we have the powers that are necessary to cover all of the legitimate points raised by the amendments, but no more.

Viscount Falkland: I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. I believe that there are hidden complexities that we need to examine further. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]

Viscount Falkland: moved Amendment No. 138:
	Page 8, line 17, leave out "vicinity of the premises" and insert "locality"

Viscount Falkland: In moving Amendment No. 138, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 139, 142, 144, 145, 146, 148, 285, 286, 289, 291, 292, 293, 294, 140, 143, 287 and 290. That large group of amendments are all related.
	I shall speak to Amendment No. 139 first. Clause 13(3) introduces unnecessary restrictions on which members of the public can object to the grant of a premises licence. At present it is not necessary for a person to live
	"in the vicinity of the premises"
	in order to object. However, the words
	"in the vicinity of the premises"
	give rise to some difficulty. They are legal definitions and it is difficult for that person's objection to be considered by a local authority or by the licensing justices.
	Any person who may be affected by the use of the premises for licensable activities should obviously have the right to be heard. That is an elementary requirement of natural justice as well as being an entitlement under Article 6 of the Convention on Human Rights. The amendment is designed to remove that restriction.
	The removal of the restriction is particularly important when considering the requirement that the Bill imposes on licensing authorities to grant applications in the absence of "relevant representations"—whether or not the grant of the application would promote the licensing objectives, or be in accordance with the authority's licensing policy or be consistent with the Secretary of State's guidance, which is the definition of "relevant representations" in the Bill. The right of an "ordinary person" to object to the grant of a premises licence will be particularly important, given that he or she has no such right to object to the grant of personal licences or to the holding of temporary events.
	The Committee stage of the Bill is taking some time and is generating some interest among the public at large. The lack of ordinary persons' rights as we perceive them in the Bill is getting a lot of attention and is creating a great deal of concern. So I shall be particularly interested in the Minister's answer to that point.
	Amendment No. 140 is intended to remove a further unnecessary restriction. There is no provision for an objector to be represented by another individual. The individuals of course could be local councillors or a Member of Parliament. The use of the phrase "a body representing" persons who live in the vicinity may exclude, for example, amenity societies, hospitals and all kinds of fairly obvious bodies and societies constituted as charities and which do not therefore represent particular residents.
	Amendment No. 143 is designed to ensure, for the avoidance of doubt, that amenity societies and similar organisations will retain the right, which is not clear in the Bill, to object to licences which they possess at present.
	I turn to Amendments No. 144 and 146. The drafting of the provision seems designed to prevent organisations which are not businesses, which may be affected by the grant of a premises licence, from being heard. Those could be schools, hospitals or indeed any other non-profit making activity.
	I think that I have covered the contents of that string of amendments with those remarks. I beg to move.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 139, 144 to 146, 148, 286, 291 and 293. I shall not follow the noble Lord on Amendments Nos. 140, 143, 287 and 290, partly because of the topography of the groupings page and also the fact that Amendment No. 140 is unlikely to come after Amendment No. 293 in the same group. However, I respond very warmly to the spirit with which he spoke to the earlier amendments.
	I wish to add two random examples. As to Amendment No. 139, those living locally seem to me to have every right to take an interest in the fact that there is a bus stop close to the licensed premises as there is likely to be noise going on into the night as a result of its location.
	As to Amendment No. 145—I declare an interest as the recently appointed Pro-Chancellor of the University of London—other bodies such as universities or, indeed looking across the Chamber, trades unions, equally have a right to express an interest in these matters. They are as likely to be affected as are residents in the areas concerned.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I briefly add to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Falkland. What the Committee hopes to hear from the Minister with regard to the word "representing" is that it means representing not in a formal legal sense, but in a broader sense.
	Secondly, how representative? Does the body concerned have to purport to represent all local people or, as I would hope, will it be sufficient for the body, for example, to represent informally a group of local people who have come to a public meeting which has been advertised specifically to mount objection to a particular licensing application? That is quite common. A village notice board may ask all those concerned about the proposed 24-hour opening of the White Hart to come to the village hall on Tuesday night.
	I hope that the Minister can assure the Committee that such a meeting, which would be made up of course of one party—those opposed—would nonetheless be a body, and that the person or persons who at the end of that meeting were so charged would be a body representing persons who live in that vicinity within the meaning of this subsection.

Baroness Buscombe: I follow on in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has just asked the Minister in relation to Clause 13(3)(b). A great deal turns on the meaning of the word "representing". As a past chairman of the Goring and Streatley Amenity Association, I know that if we had not carried out our function, albeit in a very informal way, of representing that body in relation to some applications within the local area, our lives would not have been worth living. That is why such groups exist, to be the eyes and ears—the bush telegraph or village pump—of local areas. Therefore it is tremendously important that bodies such as amenity associations and local pressure groups should be allowed to represent people within their local area.

Baroness Blackstone: An interested party is a local resident or residents' association, local business or trade group. These may want to make representations on applications for premises, licences or club premises' certificates or to apply for a review of the licence or certificate after it has been granted. I can give the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, the reassurance that they seek. They do not have to represent everyone in the area, but only those who have requested them to act on their behalf in objecting to a particular licence. However, if we expand these groups too far, we add to the bureaucracy of the system. That places a burden not only on industry but also on the licensing authorities. Simplicity is something we should value.
	One of the aims of the Government in bringing forward this legislation is to give a real voice and influence to local people who will be affected by the decisions taken. The industry understands that but has some anxiety about it. Local economies need the investment and employment that the hospitality and retail businesses bring. But these businesses also need some certainties if they are to make the necessary investment. Therefore a balance has to be struck.
	Amendments Nos. 138, 142, 145, 285, 289 and 292 focus on the definition of a local resident. The Bill describes such a person as living in the vicinity of the premises but it does not define vicinity. That is a matter for the licensing authority to judge when receiving a representation or an application for a review. This is a matter on which the courts may have to rule if a challenge is mounted against the decision of the licensing authority.
	The amendments substitute the broader term "locality" and in doing that, sever the direct link made to premises by the Bill. Their intention is to extend the range of people who might object to those living further away. This again raises the issue of nuisance caused by some customers of licensed premises when they may be hundreds of yards away. Once customers are beyond the vicinity of the premises concerned, it will be enormously difficult to say which venue they were at. They may have come out of a private house drunk and disorderly.
	The purpose of the Bill is to give a voice to those living near to the premises who will be more directly affected by what happens on those premises and would be able to demonstrate that concern at a hearing. The use of the term "locality" would muddy the waters and make it more difficult for licensing authorities to decide if a representation was in the frame. Severing the direct link to premises makes much more difficult, if not impossible, the proper consideration of any application on its merits. The focus of a premises' licence is the activities to be permitted on those premises, not the behaviour of individuals half a mile away and beyond the control of any licensee. If people do engage in anti-social behaviour, they have to be dealt with under the law as individuals. There is no sensible substitute for personal responsibility before the law. The Bill sets out the proper duties and obligations to be placed on licensees. If we go beyond that, we reduce the credibility of the licensing system. Other crime and disorder prevention strategies deal with those broader anxieties.
	Our amendments in this group—Amendments Nos. 139, 148, 294 and 286—take a slightly different tack by referring to persons legitimately or simply affected by the use of the club or licensed premises. As we are dealing with primary legislation, the use of the word "legitimately" must be largely redundant. The arguments are essentially the same. I appreciate that some noble Lords believe that the impact of licensed premises may fall as hard on those living near to taxi ranks, fast-food outlets or, indeed, a bus stop where customers may go after visiting licensed premises. How far away from the premises are we talking about and which premises? If we are talking about cumulative effects of many licensed premises, that is a matter to be addressed more broadly. We have already debated that.
	Licensing can be only one strand of a much more complex approach. It is certainly not a panacea. I would be the first to accept that. The right approach is for the licensing authority to judge when an individual lives in the vicinity of the premises and if an objection through representation or a complaint through an application for a review is legitimate under the terms of the Bill.
	Finally, Amendments Nos. 144, 146, 291 and 293 seek to expand the term "business in the vicinity" to include any organisation. There are many possibilities; schools, churches, hospitals, perhaps a prison or a trade union, as has already been suggested. Businesses are listed because livelihoods may be at stake. If disorder, disturbance or nuisance drives customers away from another business, jobs may be lost and the business may fail.
	I made the point earlier that the more we extend the number of people that may make representations, the more we increase the number of potential hearings. That would make the system more bureaucratic and more expensive and would add to the burdens of both industry and licensing authorities. We must approach with caution any expansion of these definitions. I have great sympathy with the idea that schools should be able to make representations about an application and if that were denied by the Bill, I should certainly agree to consider the proposed amendments. However, in the case of a school, it would not be difficult for the school to encourage a parent, a pupil, a governor or a teacher living in the vicinity or indeed the local residents' association to make the necessary representations. In practical terms, I do not believe any of these organisations or bodies will be inhibited from objecting where necessary.

Lord Avebury: If the governors of the school represent a group of people who are drawn from the vicinity, then they must be allowed to make representations.

Baroness Blackstone: That is exactly what I said. The Bill would indeed allow that.

Lord Avebury: I said as governors, not as individuals. It is clear that they are representing the school and not individual parents.

Baroness Blackstone: They can make representations as governors as long as someone associated with the school, living in the vicinity—normally governors do live in the vicinity—requests them to make such a complaint.
	I turn now to Amendments Nos. 140, 143, 287 and 290. Those amendments had been grouped separately but because they put forward the same argument, rightly, the noble Viscount included them in this group. The amendments provide that the Bill would explicitly state that a local residents' body would be one the licensing authority considered was representative. We have made it clear that it is for the licensing authority to decide in the first instance whether a body is representative of local residents. I do not believe that the wording of these amendments adds anything to that. It would be down to the judgment of the licensing authority, and, if necessary, the courts. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Before the noble Viscount withdraws the amendment—I had misunderstood and thought he was not moving Amendment No. 140 and its associated amendments—perhaps I may ask the Minister whether a Member of Parliament or a councillor is in her view entitled to act as a representative on behalf of those who want to make complaints. Frankly, there has hitherto been some doubt whether that opportunity will continue to be available to Members of Parliament and councillors, or whether the Bill is intended to take them out of the chain.

Baroness Blackstone: The answer is yes: a Member of Parliament could act as a representative.

Viscount Falkland: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for responding to this great raft of amendments in such a helpful and detailed way. I apologise to the Committee for running on in my enthusiasm to a later grouping—the fault of my highlighting pencil—but the Minister was kind enough to say that the amendments were related and to respond to them.
	This has been an interesting debate. Those outside the House who take a close interest in the Bill will find the Minister's remarks and the contributions of other noble Lords extremely useful. This is one area of the Bill where we do not know what will happen when it is enacted. The Government take a slightly more optimistic view than do some Members on this side of the Committee, although it is actually not a party political matter. Some government Members may take a not very sanguine view of the ability under the Bill to obtain alcohol at all hours of the day and night. There will undoubtedly be difficulties.
	If I interpret the Minister's remarks correctly, she is not prepared to acknowledge that we live in a highly mobile society. The whole business of "vicinity" and "locality" is the subject of much concern. After all, people may come out of a club that does not properly control the amount of alcohol sold to people who are clearly unable to hold it. One hopes that those people will return home by public transport, not in their cars. Happily, that is one area of our culture that has changed. Such people now know that it is illegal and improper to drive their cars. But people will move about in areas well removed from the source of the problem.
	We shall carefully study the Minister's remarks, as I suspect will those outside the House. The cause of much concern is whether sufficient protection is in place under the liberalisation—with which we agree in theory—that the Government are introducing. That is what the amendments were intended to winkle out—to use that unparliamentary expression—from the Government. I thank the Minister for her complete answer. I shall carefully consider it and return to the matter later.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, to assist the House, will the noble Baroness, after the debate, consider her reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville? I think there may be a misunderstanding. I understood the Minister to say that an MP could under the subsection be representative of people living in the vicinity of a pub. That may not be right, in that the "interested party" definition is either of persons living in the vicinity or having a business in the vicinity or a body representing such persons. I do not understand how an MP could fall within the definition of a body representing persons.

Viscount Falkland: Or a councillor.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Or a councillor, as my noble friend says.
	Finally, there may have been a misunderstanding about what was said vis-à-vis school governors. I think that the Minister said words to the effect that a board of governors could, if one of them lived in the vicinity of a pub, thereby become an interested party. That is undoubtedly true, but what was being suggested was that if, let us say, a primary school in a village had threequarters of its pupils coming from the village, the primary school committee could be a body representing those of the children who came from the village. I do not want the Minister to be drawn into those refinements now—this is hard for everyone—but it may be appropriate for her to consider the matter and communicate further.

Viscount Falkland: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 139 to 146 not moved.]

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 147:
	Page 8, line 20, at end insert—
	"( ) the Member of the European Parliament, the Member of Parliament and the local ward councillors for the constituency or ward in which the premises are situated"

Baroness Buscombe: Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, said, we ask in the amendment whether,
	"the Member of the European Parliament, the Member of Parliament and the local ward councillors for the constituency or ward in which the premises are situated",
	would fall within the definition of "interested party". As I understood it, the Minister said that a Member of Parliament would. However, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that on reading the wording of the Bill, it is hard to see how that is the case.
	Clause 13(3)(a) states:
	"a person living in the vicinity of the premises".
	It is not unknown for Members of Parliament, of the European Parliament, and so on, to live outside the area they represent—which is the vicinity of the premises. As for,
	"a body representing persons",
	an individual Member of Parliament or of the European Parliament is not a body. A Member of Parliament or of the European Parliament is not necessarily,
	"a person involved in a business in that vicinity".
	Clause 13(3)(d) states:
	"a body representing persons involved in such businesses".
	Again, that does not allow for the inclusion of a Member of Parliament or of the European Parliament.
	I therefore ask the Minister to support Amendment No. 147 and consequential Amendment No. 295—especially if she supports the notion that a Member of Parliament, national or European, or councillor should be an interested party in his or her constituency or ward, as I think and hope she does. I have not chosen to move the previous amendment concerning the word "representation", because I listened to what the Minister said about the principle behind the clause. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: Perhaps I may rejoin the debate, having missed a little of it. I declare my interest as a member of a local authority.
	I support my noble friend's amendment, especially as it concerns ward councillors. It is strange that there is nothing in subsection (3)(a), (b), (c) or (d) by which a ward councillor could be identified. In my experience of licensing panels, ward councillors tend to become involved not only in their own interest but in the interest of those whom they represent.
	My noble friend is correct. Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) contain nothing that could be translated into the terms of her amendment. If, in due course, we are left with the list of interested parties in the Bill, there will be continued debate about whether a ward councillor can attend—unless someone has a copy of Hansard to hand to look up the reference. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us again on that point. I believe that she has done so previously.

Baroness Blackstone: The amendments would make Members of the European Parliament and Members of Parliament "interested parties" for premises within their constituencies. Councillors would be interested parties for premises within their wards. Under the Bill, interested parties may make representations about applications for licences or certificates. They may also apply to the relevant licensing authority for reviews of licences or certificates. Therefore, the amendments would allow MEPs, MPs and councillors to make representations about applications for licences and to apply for reviews of licences and certificates for any premises within their constituency or ward.
	The Government believe that the licensing system should be managed by democratically accountable bodies. That is why we are transferring responsibility for alcohol licensing from the licensing justices. We also believe that local residents and businesses should be given the opportunity to have their say about licensed premises in their vicinity. That is why those groups are included in the list of interested parties.
	It is the case that any resident living in the vicinity may use any representative to put his or her case. I hope that that answers the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. The representative could be a solicitor, a friend, a relative, a Member of Parliament, a ward councillor, an MEP, a Member of the National Assembly for Wales or of a body representing the amenity interests in the vicinity. Therefore, a person can nominate any individual to act on his or her behalf. But why should any of those individuals have a say "in their own right"? In every case that I have cited, "representative" is the appropriate word. If no local resident in the vicinity wants to exercise his or her right to make representation or to apply for a review, whom would those representatives be representing?
	The representatives are available if a local resident wants to use their services. However, views should not be expressed on a resident's behalf when he or she has not been consulted and has not made a request. The rights given are to protect those directly affected by activities to be carried on at the premises concerned. It is not a matter for others to tell residents that they know better.
	In the light of what I have said I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Lord Borrie: Before my noble friend sits down, I listened to the earlier points made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I found the Minister's response to the amendment rather difficult. If anyone can represent a person living in the vicinity of the premises, what is the point of the special mention in subsection (3)(b) of,
	"a body representing persons who live in that vicinity"?
	If it is either a person or a body, the subsection should say so. Alternatively, there is no need for paragraph (b). I find it rather difficult to understand. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain whether I have misunderstood the provision.

Baroness Blackstone: I am not sure why the subsection uses the term "a body" rather than "a body or a person". I suspect that the lawyers will tell us that when drafting legislation of this sort "a body" includes a person as well as some form of organisation. That person might be an MEP or an MP. However, the point is that we cannot concede that any of these bodies or persons should complain in their own right without a request from people or businesses who live in the vicinity. I believe that that is clear.

Lord Avebury: The ward councillor or MP might happen to live in the vicinity of the establishment. In that scenario, he would not be representing only himself; he might also be representing his constituents.

Baroness Blackstone: Of course.

Baroness Buscombe: I fear that I am not happy with the Minister's reply. From it, I understand that a body such as a local ginger group or an amenity association can come under the terms of Clause 13(3)(b) but not a Member of Parliament or a Member of the European Parliament. There is confusion here. I am not happy with the Minister's reply. It is important that Members of Parliament—be they Members of the European Parliament, Members of the national Parliament or local ward councillors—should be able to represent persons living in the vicinity, whether in terms of what might be classed a public right or in their own right.
	I am not happy with the Minister's reply, which conflicts with an earlier response. On that basis I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 147) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 112; Not-Contents, 111.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 148 not moved.]

Viscount Falkland: moved Amendment No. 149:
	Page 8, line 28, leave out from "authority" to end of line 31 and insert "for the area in which the premises are situated"

Viscount Falkland: It is our contention that this is a further important amendment if local democratic accountability is to be preserved. Clause 18 provides that applications are to be granted in the absence of "relevant representations" made by,
	"an interested party or responsible authority".
	The Bill requires a licensing authority to promote the licensing objectives set out in Clause 4 and to have regard to its licensing statement and, as the Bill stands, to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. It ought to be the case that a licensing authority should have the power to refuse an application for a premises licence where the licensing objectives would not be promoted by granting the licence and/or where the grant of a licence would be contrary to the licensing statement or the guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The licensing authority must, therefore, be entitled to take into account the licensing objectives, its policy and the guidance, even where there are no relevant representations from interested parties.
	Under Clause 13(4)(d) the licensing authority may make relevant representations only in its capacity as an environmental health authority. The amendment is designed to enable the licensing authority to draw to its own attention by means of making relevant representations the impact of the grant of a licence on the licensing objectives, its policy and central government guidance.
	The clause as drafted narrowly limits the grounds on which a local authority can make relevant representations to its statutory functions in relation to environmental health. But local authorities have much wider responsibilities for crime and disorder under the Crime and Disorder Act, and for the environmental and social well-being of their areas under the Local Government Act 2000.
	In addition, local authorities have obligations under statute, in common law and under the European Convention on Human Rights. It would be wrong, therefore, to prevent them from making relevant representations to the extent that these responsibilities required them to do so, given that to do so would promote the licensing objectives. I beg to move.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Anything that I might say on Amendments Nos. 186 and 189 would simply go back to the amendment that the noble Viscount so ably moved. I am delighted to support him.

Lord Davies of Oldham: We have a difference of approach, as is reflected in the amendment. I will seek to defend the position represented in the legislation, and I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, will accept that the amendment is undesirable.
	The principle on which we are working is straightforward. The licensing authority's discretion is engaged only when relevant representation has emerged. In seeking that objective, we are seeking to support the concept behind the Bill as a deregulation measure, keeping bureaucracy to the absolute minimum. Under normal circumstances, when no one has objected to the position, the licensing authority is carrying out a straightforward exercise of accepting a licence application to which no one has raised any objection. That will reduce bureaucracy, when no one outside the authority has shown any cause for doubt and the licensing authority—which is the local authority—is able judiciously to use its judgment on the licence, to which no one has objected. The problem with the noble Viscount's amendment is that it brings the licensing authority into conflict with itself, having raised objections that were raised by no one else.
	The amendment would make a straightforward exercise into a fundamental issue. The local authority on which the premises or club is situated would be able to object to an application for the grant or variation of a licence or certificate, or to complain about certain premises, and give rise to a review of a licence when no one else had done so. That would run counter to the philosophy behind the Bill, which is to keep the system as clear, straightforward and unbureaucratic as possible, and would bring the local authority into a particular relationship when it is itself the licensing authority.
	That is the argument and concept behind the clause, and why the amendment should not be accepted. We should consider who has not objected to the application. The police, the fire authority and the local residents have not objected—no one who has a direct interest in the issue has objected. The local councillors have not been active on behalf of anyone else, because no one else has raised an issue with regard to the application. Suddenly, the whole local authority, which is the licensing authority, is part and parcel to an objection. That clearly does not fit with a measure in which there is ample provision for those who object to be able to do so, and there are proper procedures for them to do so. The amendment would introduce a massive complication for the authority in its licensing role. On that basis I hope that the noble Viscount will reconsider the amendment.
	We shall discuss aspects of the other amendments, to which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, referred, on Clause 18. They would broaden the issues to much more general points than the technical grounds on which professional local officers such as environmental health officers can make representations and object. If the amendments were accepted, absolutely any area would be open to objection, with the local authority making representations accordingly.
	We are seeking to keep a balanced, proper and correct procedure, which certainly gives the opportunity for those who wish to object and feel the obligation to do so. When no one in the community has objected and no professional body has done so, it must be right to regard the local authority as able to act in its straightforward licensing role and not get involved in the process that the amendment would impose.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: The Minister made reference to Amendments Nos. 186 and 189, which I simply prayed in aid of the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. One purpose of Amendment No. 186 was to allow police officers and the local authority to make representations in relation to premises supervisors in any circumstances required to promote the licensing objectives. Of course, it is likely that the police will have views on a particular individual as regards licensing. Those who have been inspecting on behalf of the local authority also have detailed knowledge, however, and it seems a pity that that knowledge should not be available when the decision comes to be made.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Perhaps I was not entirely fair to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and I apologise if that was so. We shall have a major debate on the issue when we discuss other amendments.
	As the noble Lord rightly said, the relevant issues for individuals specified in a premises licence will concern the police. I emphasise that we are seeking to develop a system in which managers can move from premises to premises with the minimum of hindrance. Any objection that was laid against such a manager would inevitably be a police matter, because it would relate to criminal law and to a lack of fitness of the individual to continue in that capacity. We shall have a debate on that subject later, but I emphasise that the issue is one not for the licensing authority but for the police.

Viscount Falkland: I was about to speak before, but the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, put the matter much better than I could have done, as one would expect.
	The Minister made an interesting and clever speech, knocking down my Aunt Sally. I confess that my amendment is a difficult concept, but he cleverly kept off the licensing objectives, which are at the core of the question. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, there is no reason why the local authorities should not have the right to feel that there was a reason that the licensing objectives were not met.
	I take all the points that the Minister made about added bureaucracy, but many of us feel that the Bill will create more bureaucracy anyway, rather than reduce it. On the face of it, the project of removing the licensing of alcohol and entertainment from magistrates to local authorities is a simple one. However, as we are finding out, it is a complex issue, and we would not be debating the matter in Committee for five days if it were not. We do not yet have the guidelines.
	We shall deal with the licensing objectives later. However, I take what the Minister says, and compliment him on the clever way in which he made my amendment look irrelevant and obscure. However, I hope that he understands me when I say that we would like to reconsider the points that were raised. We have been advised that the issue is important, and we shall, if necessary, return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 150 and 151 not moved.]

Lord Redesdale: moved Amendment No. 152:
	Page 8, line 43, leave out paragraph (g).

Lord Redesdale: This is a probing amendment. The amendments so far have been aimed at widening the number of people who could object. This one goes in the opposite direction, as the Minister will no doubt point out. He has strenuously rejected any attempt to widen the number of groups who can oppose, saying that the list is authoritative. The purpose of the amendment is to ask the Minister who would be prescribed by the Secretary of State under this paragraph. Obviously there is a balance to be struck between allowing eligible groups to oppose and allowing the industry to ensure that the list does not become too wide. It would be helpful if the Minister could outline those groups, bodies or individuals who are envisaged under paragraph (g). I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: I support the amendment, to which my name and that of my noble friend Lord Luke have been added. It would be otiose to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said. I apologise to the Committee for being so dilatory in not thanking the Minister at the beginning of our debates today for her letter dated today. I am reminded of it by the reference of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, to the lack of draft guidance. I am pleased that the Minister's letter has confirmed that draft guidance will be available in time for Report.
	We are all extremely grateful that the Minister has seen fit to strengthen her team to ensure that sufficient resources are concentrated on the production of the guidance. We are grateful that she has listened to our earnest pleas for sight of the guidance before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House. Many of the practical implications of the Bill will be dealt with in the guidance. I am grateful to the Minister for making strenuous efforts to ensure that we shall be able to have the guidance at our side when we debate the Bill on Report.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I support the amendment. I listened to the Minister say how precise and clear the list is and how we do not need to extend it. However, he then shoots himself in the foot under paragraph (g) by saying that the Government will have anybody else that they like at the time prescribed. There is no logic in that. The Minister has talked eloquently and persuasively, while I have been sitting here quietly, about how all the earlier categories under subsection (4) are exhaustive, exhausting and explicit. Then, lo and behold, he goes and does this. I cannot see how he can logically defend it.

Lord Davies of Oldham: This is a case of girding one's loins. I shall clearly do my best to keep the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in what he indicates has been a benign frame of mind for the past half hour or so as we have debated these issues. I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, moved his amendment and to the noble Baroness Lady Buscombe, who, for the first time, mentioned her colleague the noble Lord, Lord Luke, who I understand is enjoying his 70th birthday today. That gives me the chance to congratulate him. I am sure that we all wish him well on such an auspicious day. He is fortunate not to be in my position on these challenging amendments.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, we regard our list as exhaustive. It is meant to be exhaustive and comprehensive, so I am open to chiding from the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on why on earth we should have an open-ended dimension for the Secretary of State to add to a list that is meant to be exhaustive, as I sought to say earlier.
	The answer is straightforward. There is nothing sinister in the proposals. We simply seek to make provision for the possible development of public authorities that we know not of at the moment. In due course Parliament and the executive may, in their wisdom, seek to develop fresh authorities, public bodies and—dare I say—even quangos, which may have an interest in this area. We cannot define them at this stage because they do not exist. However, it would not be right to have to go back to primary legislation to include the interests of any such body if it were widely recognised to have a proper interest and role to play. For example, the list contains the Maritime and Coastguard Agency as agents of the Secretary of State. We do not know whether it or any other body may have its name or role changed. Change occurs with such bodies. We are merely seeking to avoid the need to use primary legislation to bring them within the framework. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee saw no reason to object to the provision. I am taking the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, at his word. This is a probing amendment and it has certainly probed me quite deeply. I hope I have given a satisfactory response.

Lord Redesdale: With that answer and the understanding that the Minister does not have any particular bodies in mind at the moment, I shall not press the amendment. It is unsettling that there is quite such a blank cheque. I am sure the industry will find that slightly unnerving, but I take the Minister at his word that the provision will not be used as an opening to include large numbers of other groups, or, especially, other quangos. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
	Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 14 agreed to.
	Clause 15 [Meaning of "designated premises supervisor"]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 154:
	Page 9, line 5, leave out subsection (1).

Baroness Buscombe: This clause introduces the issue of the designated premises supervisor, who looms large in the Bill and has been a topic of much discussion and consternation for all those involved. The clause defines the designated premises supervisor as the individual named on the premises licence as the premises supervisor. The requirement that the designated personal licence holders be formally linked to the premises licence threatens to increase significantly the bureaucracy faced by premises licence holders and the costs incurred by local authorities. It will lead to numerous applications to vary the licence as personnel move around. The requirement also runs counter to the flexibility of a split licensing system, set out in the White Paper.
	In the event of an extraordinary incident, such as the designated supervisor leaving employment without providing prior notification to their employer, or the immediate curtailment of employment of the designated personal licence holder, the licensed premises will cease to be able to trade. The White Paper sought to move away from the system whereby a premises licence holder would be penalised for the actions of a personal licence holder without even the application of the due diligence defence. The clause will impose just that system.
	Why have the proposals for a new system outlined in the White Paper been replaced by a system that involves more red tape? Local authorities and the industry were hoping for flexibility in the new licensing system. This issue of the designated premises supervisor is just one example of how those who drafted the Bill have failed in their promise to liberalise the licensing process.
	I want to make an additional point that I believe is relevant. We are puzzled as to why provisions in the Bill deal with the designated premises supervisor, as he or she appears to have no function at all. However, a number of provisions in the Bill appear to give the designated premises supervisor some function. For example, Clause 19 provides that a designated premises supervisor is required where the premises licence authorises the supply of alcohol, and that no supply of alcohol may be made on any premises unless there is a designated premises supervisor in possession of a personal licence.
	If a designated premises supervisor is identified in the premises licence and has a personal licence, those requirements are satisfied. There is surely no need for the designated premises supervisor identified in the premises licence to be on the premises, or even to supervise the supply of alcohol. That is made clear by subsection (3) of the same clause, which provides that,
	"every supply of alcohol under the premises licence must be made or authorised by a person who holds a personal licence".
	That subsection does not refer to a designated premises supervisor. Such authority can be given by someone else who holds a personal licence.
	We appreciate that a designated premises supervisor can be guilty of a number of offences in Part 7. However, the designated premises supervisor is just one of a group of people who can be prosecuted, including the holder of the premises licence or any person who works at the relevant premises. In any event, all the offences require knowledge of some activity being carried on. If the designated premises supervisor is not on the premises, he or she would not have sufficient knowledge for the purposes of the prosecution.
	The functions of the designated premises supervisor in the Bill are illusory. Provided that a designated premises supervisor is identified in the premises licence and that he holds a personal licence, the requirements of the Bill are satisfied. That being so, we must ask ourselves whether there is some hidden agenda. Is it intended that the designated premises supervisor must be on the premises when alcohol is served? If that were the case, that requirement could be unacceptable to many commercial organisations, and would undoubtedly be unacceptable to most voluntary organisations such as village hall committees up and down the country.
	Voluntary organisations are in many instances, as the description suggests, run by volunteers. It surely would be unacceptable if a volunteer helping out in village life, and who was identified as the designated premises supervisor of a village hall, had to attend and supervise every function there. That would put intolerable pressure on a mere volunteer who gives up his or her time for free.
	We therefore urge the Government to confirm that the provision is not intended to impose any obligations or functions on the designated premises supervisor. I beg to move.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I must inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 154 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 155 to 157 for reasons of pre-emption.

Lord Williamson of Horton: I make my customary declaration of interest as a non-executive director of Whitbread plc. I broadly support the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. As every vote counts, I am sure that she will be very happy to know that that is so.
	We cannot look ahead too far to future amendments, but it is none the less true that Amendment No. 155 would alter the reference to the designated premises supervisor. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, will come on to that relevant point. Later, the jumbo group in which the lead amendment is Amendment No. 160 will suggest changes in how the information about the premises supervisor would be handled. That relates to Clause 36 in particular, under which we might have an application to vary the licence to specify an individual as a premises supervisor.
	I enter the discussion at this point because I think it important that we should not get into a mindset that perhaps relates a little to the past. I also want to indicate, certainly in relation to a good number of companies that operate in the sector—for example, pub-restaurants—that we would not normally expect to start with a blank cheque if there were to be a change. That will not actually happen. What will happen is that the personnel who will deal in such premises, whether as designated premises supervisors or premises supervisors, are likely in many cases simply to be transferred from another establishment. That is good management, and is the way things will operate. The people who are arriving are likely to have already been accepted as designated premises supervisors, if the term remains in the Bill, or as premises supervisors.
	The principle on which we ought to work is that we absolutely minimise the need to question again the position of someone who has already been accepted elsewhere as a premises supervisor. That is true throughout this part of the Bill. The Government have done quite a good job on Clause 36, but it is very important that any changes made do not result in a situation in which we significantly reopen the issue when someone has already been accepted as capable and qualified to be a designated premises supervisor, if that remains in the Bill, or at least a premises supervisor. If we do that, we will not be matching the way in which the industry is developing. For example, substantial groups own a good number of pub-restaurants or pubs and move people around in the interests of good management.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I have tabled some amendments—Amendments Nos. 155 and 157—that come within this area. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we addressed those now, because my noble friend has eloquently spoken on the whole topic. She has been a good deal more radical than I had envisaged being in my amendments. I have been using a scalpel, and she has been using a cleaver. The cleaver is probably to be preferred in the end.
	I do not want to repeat the points made by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, except to say that the Bill is deregulatory. Ministers keep telling us that, but this part of it adds another layer of licensable persons. It really adds nothing to premises and personal licences, the concept of which we have broadly accepted.
	As my noble friend said, the provisions have an illusory role. Perhaps I might give a practical example. There are about 70,000 public houses in this country, of which about half are owner-managed. In those cases, presumably the personal licence holder and the premises supervisor will be the same. There is only one person, because he is an owner-manager. Nothing will really be achieved. All the Bill would do is require more forms to be filled in and more people to be registered.
	As for those who are in the managed sector, that is another 35,000 people to be enrolled, registered and tracked. Every change would be re-registered. It is not clear to me from the Bill exactly whether it is envisaged that one could have a premises supervisor for more than one premises, or whether there is a maximum number of premises to which a person may be a supervisor.
	There would be another layer of bureaucracy as a result of a deregulatory Bill. It adds nothing that is not there already, with the twin approach debated during the Committee's earlier sittings. There must be a strong argument for taking a much more radical approach and using, as my noble friend did, the cleaver to reduce the burden on the industry.

Lord Redesdale: I do not believe that the metaphor of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, of a cleaver is fair. Basically, the amendment, which we support, brings the Bill back into line with the White Paper, which was debated by the industry and was the subject of much discussion for many years. The problem with subsection (1) is that it introduces designated premises supervisors, which muddies the waters between a premises licence and a personal licence. The strength of the amendment is that we would move away from that added form of bureaucracy and back to something that was envisaged in the White Paper. It has now somehow been changed for the worse through the translation of the White Paper into the Bill. I hope that the Minister considers the issue carefully. Although many amendments follow on from this amendment, the issue will be of central importance to the next stage of the Bill.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: I was intending to speak to later amendments but the general issue is raised in this regard. It may be helpful to the Minister and the Committee if one gets off one's chest what one wants to say. I begin by declaring an interest as a consultant to the Co-operative group and as the vice-chairman of the all-party retail group, which has a general interest in this sphere.
	From what I have read I am, frankly, puzzled. I have had good information from a body called the British Beer and Pub Association, which also represents other bodies. I want to use the word "puzzlement". I am sure that the Minister will be able to help us. Reference has already been made to the position in the White Paper. The amendments seek to secure the understanding in the White Paper.
	The BBPA states:
	"The White Paper stated that on taking up responsibility for a business the licensee should 'normally do no more than simply register his or her arrival with his local police and the licensing authority by a letter covering a copy of the personal licence'".
	That is simple, unbureaucratic and practical. However, the situation has now changed; I am sure that the Minister will tell us why. The industry proposed the original concept in a submission in 1999. That was taken up in the White Paper in 2000. I am told that none of the parties in the working groups that were consulted by the DCMS appears to want or believe it to be necessary to evolve such an unnecessary complex system. All that is required is that the police and licensing authority know who is responsible for any particular premises.
	The Minister knows that the Bill has had a general welcome in the industry and among many other bodies and the general public. We do not argue against the Bill or even its principle; we argue against the manner in which the Minister and his colleagues consider it appropriate to take it forward. I should be grateful if he dealt with that point.
	The principle of splitting the licence into a personal and premises licence is severely undermined through the requirement to name the personal licensee on the premises licence and treating a change of licensee as a variation of the premises licence. Frankly, I am puzzled about the reasons why. That leads to a great paper-chase every time there is a change of manager or tenant. We do not want that unless it is absolutely necessary. The Minister will doubtless tell us why it is absolutely necessary and we will have to cogitate on his case. This does not involve confusion; it is difficult to understand why that which was previously part and parcel of the rapport between the industry and the Minister had to involve the change that we are discussing.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In order to save time, I am going to make a long speech. As has been recognised in our debate, the amendment, which is the first in a series of amendments about the designated premises supervisor can cover the whole range of issues raised in subsequent amendments. By setting out where we stand on designated premises supervisors, I hope that I will be able to make shorter speeches when we consider Amendment No. 155, the group of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 156, the group of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 157, the group of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 160, Amendment No. 161, the group of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 187, the group of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 214 and the group of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 273. I hope that I will be spared the necessity of making this general speech all over again.
	As has been recognised, this is an absolutely fundamental concept in relation to the way in which the Bill has been drafted. We start straightaway with the central concept of the designated premises supervisor. Amendment No. 154 would efface effectively from the Bill the whole principle of the designated premises supervisor. I venture to suggest that if the amendment were agreed to, all of the groups of amendments to which I have referred would no longer be necessary.
	As we made clear on Second Reading and beyond, the Bill is a balanced package—the balance is between reducing bureaucracy for the industry and maintaining safeguards to protect the public. The designated premises supervisor is the essential key to that balanced package. The Bill requires that every premises licence that authorises the supply of alcohol must specify a designated premises supervisor. That includes premises such as a pub, nightclub or supermarket. The designated premises supervisor must be the holder of a personal licence. I shall say in a moment what that involves. In practice, that individual will be responsible for the day-to-day running of the premises and will shoulder much of the burden on behalf of the premises licence holder.
	I of course agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that with village pubs there will be no separation: the premises licence holder will be the designated premises supervisor and that role will no longer be significant. However, it must be recognised that in any larger organisation, which could be a business as opposed to an individual, there must be someone who is capable of ensuring that the conditions of the premises licence are adhered to. There could be a number of personal licence holders working in larger premises and junior and assistant managers could all hold those licences. There is no requirement in the Bill that they should be listed or that their names should be made available. There is no bureaucracy of that sort. All of those people would have satisfied the conditions for holding a personal licence to supply alcohol. They must be over the age of 18, have no unspent convictions for relevant offences and possess an accredited licensing qualification so that they will have at least some understanding of the social issues and potential problems associated with the sale of alcohol. The reason for having a designated premises supervisor is to ensure that there is always one specified individual among those personal licence holders who is identified and identifiable for the premises. One hopes that they will have experience relating to the supply of alcohol and alcohol-related matters.
	We anticipate that the designated premises supervisor will be given day-to-day responsibility for running the premises by the premises licence holder. That is not to say that he must be present on the premises all the time. Restrictions on the hours of work would make that totally impracticable. But he occupies a pivotal position. In public houses we are increasingly seeing managed houses where a large pub-operating company would hold the premises licence and a manager would be installed to look after the pub. The business could be in London, the pub in Newcastle. Management supervision would be provided usually by the designated premises supervisor. By designating the premises supervisor in the premises licence—the amendments beginning with Amendment No. 181, described by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, as the "scalpel", would leave the premises supervisor but take him off the licence—it is clear to all who is in day-to-day charge of the premises.
	The industry does not like these provisions. I know that. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, made that abundantly clear. We discussed these matters with the industry at great length.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. This is an important point. In my excitement to get to my feet earlier I forgot and probably should declare my interest for the purposes of today's debate. I am a non-executive director of a brewery and a pub operator.
	Can a designated premises supervisor be for more than one premises or only one? If it is only one, that presumably means a pub-operating chain will have to have a personal licence holder and another layer of management in the shape of a designated premises supervisor. That does not apply to single operators. So the Government are imposing a layer of management on the bigger chains that is not being imposed on single operators.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is wrong in two ways. First, a designated premises supervisor can be for more than one premises. Secondly, a personal licence holder is needed in order to operate the premises anyway. If that personal licence holder is the only personal licence holder, then he will be the designated premises supervisor. There is no additional layer. There is no separate person from the personal licence holder in the form of the designated premises supervisor. Those are absolutely minimum requirements to ensure accountability.

Lord Redesdale: This issue is causing a degree of concern. Is the Minister saying, as I believe he is, that the designated supervisor does not have to be on the premises all the time? If so, then a pub can be run for large periods of time by just a manager with the requisite personal licence.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is what I am saying.

Baroness Buscombe: Without wishing to take up too much of the Committee's time, surely that means that a large organisation is worse off than an individually-run village pub where the premises licence holder is also the designated premises supervisor. He is on site, managing and controlling the situation on a day-to-day basis. But in the case of a large organisation there has to be someone who is effectively floating from one premises to another, in which case there is not the same hands-on management. There is effectively a separate layer in this designated supervisor overseeing a number of establishments.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is possible. The Bill does not rule it out. It is not what we would expect to be the normal situation. We would normally expect there to be a designated premises supervisor who looks after one premises. There is no additional layer of bureaucracy in that. But businesses can organise themselves as they think fit. For example, if there is a more senior manager, that senior manager may be given responsibility for more than one shop or more than one pub.

Lord Redesdale: I know one publican who has four pubs. But it may be a pub chain with 30 pubs. If the designated supervisor can oversee more than one pub, does it mean that that person's name will be above the door of all four pubs in just a small chain, or all 30 pubs in a larger chain?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Much to my regret there is no provision which says that the name should be above the door. I believe it to be a good thing that it should say "Andrew Robert McIntosh" or "Rupert Mitford licensed to sell beer, wine and spirits for consumption on or off the premises". But that is not what the Bill says. It is sad but we have to put up with that.
	The principle is that the designated premises supervisor is normally the person responsible for day-to-day management of the premises. If the industry can persuade us that a single person can be responsible for the day-to-day management of more than one premises, then that person will be registered as the designated premises supervisor. There is no mystery. We are trying to be as flexible as possible to the industry.
	Although the industry does not like these provisions, the police and local authorities take a quite different view. The police and the licensing authorities who are responsible for enforcing the Bill consider these provisions essential for making enforcement effective. First, it is essential that the police or officers of the licensing authority can identify immediately the person at any premises selling alcohol in a position of authority. They can do so at the premises because a copy of the licence must be held there and a summary displayed. The Bill requires that the designated premises supervisor shall be named in the licence. That will ensure that problems are dealt with swiftly by engaging with that key individual. If the person was not named on the licence itself, as later amendments provide, passing officers or officials might have to check headquarters records. That would be neither helpful, nor practical nor efficient.
	Secondly, it is essential that the police are able to object to the designation of a new premises supervisor where in exceptional circumstances they believe the appointment would undermine the crime prevention objective in the Bill. I shall come to the circumstances of objection in a moment. For very good reasons, therefore, we have given undertakings to the police that these arrangements should prevail. The provisions establish clear lines of responsibility. Where trouble flares up the police will be better able to take the necessary action quickly, with a minimum of confusion.
	But we have not forgotten the desirability of light touch bureaucracy. We want business to thrive for the sake of investment, employment and local and national economies. But that has to be balanced against the need for effective enforcement in the interests of the wider community. All that we are asking business to do is to indicate the name of the premises supervisor on the premises licence while he or she is in post. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents an immediate change of that person if a business wants to do that.
	Where a change of premises supervisor is to take place, the premises licence-holder—perhaps a supermarket chain or a pub-operating company—notifies the police and the licensing authority and shows that the individual concerned consents to taking on the role. That is a simple notification. It is far from being what my noble friend Lord Graham called a "paper chase". The whole licence does not have to be sent in for amendment. That would place a burden on the licensing authority itself. The Bill provides that a part of the licence may be submitted, ideally a schedule to the main licence, giving personal details of key individuals. That would be dispatched, amended and returned.
	Fears have been expressed that the arrangements could hinder or slow down the movement of managers between premises. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that that is what happens in large groups. But nothing could be further from the truth. I refer to Clause 37. The premises licence holder can give notice that the appointment is being given immediate effect so that nothing hinders the change of premises supervisor. If the police intervene and object and the licensing authority upholds the police objection, the individual would have to be removed straightaway. But the premises licence holder would be able to give notice of a different individual to be given immediate effect, pending notification to the police.
	I can assure Members of the Committee that I understand the concerns about some parts of industry. But as a result of the efforts we have made to accommodate the industry, those concerns—I know they have been expressed in representations to Members of the Committee—are unfounded.

Lord Redesdale: I realise that the Minister is trying to give a comprehensive reply, but he said that the take-over could take place with immediate effect pending notification of the police. As I understand it—he may correct me—the Bill later states that the police may take up to 48 hours to make checks. Is the Minister saying that the person could take over pending the police checking up and reporting, or does he have to wait for the go-ahead from the police, which could take some time?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, he could be in post. But designated premises supervisors have to hold personal licences, which the police can check quickly.
	I saw a degree of bemusement on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, when I talked about premises supervisors having responsibility for more than one premises. That is the case because the Bill does not forbid it. However, if one looks at the practicalities, if there were a chain of 30 pubs and the premises licence holder wanted to nominate the same person for all of them, the police would say, "No, that won't work, that would undermine the objective", and they would object accordingly.
	I do not believe that that will happen. The Bill provides for one, two or three premises at most to be under the responsibility of a supervisor. We are trying to keep the provision simple and not to make it unnecessarily complicated.
	The complexity of the existing alcohol licensing regime is not fully recognised. On every occasion where a new manager of a pub or supermarket takes over control of the premises there has to be a full application for the transfer of the licence, involving a full hearing before the licensing justices and court appearances by the police, whether or not they have any objections. We expect the majority of applications to be dealt with administratively with virtually no costly court hearings, which are a common part of the existing regime.
	That is why I am justified in saying that this is a deregulatory Bill. We envisage a light touch bureaucracy but we have to balance it by giving the police a right to object and intervene, but only in exceptional circumstances. For example—this is relevant to what the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, was saying—a personal licence holder might have been allowed to retain his licence by the courts despite convictions for selling alcohol to minors, or he might have acquired convictions for the possession rather than the supply of controlled drugs. What if such an individual fetches up at a pub with a history of being used by under-age drinkers or an association with drug abuse? The police would surely intervene when such a personal licence holder and such a pub came together. That is why the provision is necessary.

Lord Williamson of Horton: Perhaps I may clarify my point. If the Minister reads Hansard he will find that I said that Clause 36 was a good clause. That is the clause about the application to vary a licence. I want to make sure that with the passage of the Bill we do not arrive at more difficult circumstances in relation to Clauses 36 and 38.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am glad to hear that and I take it as support for the Bill's provisions.
	We want a provision that allows for the industry's aims that the new regime should be simple and the regulatory burden should be as light as possible. The Bill replaces elements of more than 50 statutes currently impacting on licensing. Our estimate is that it will save the retail, hospitality and leisure industries almost £2 billion over 10 years. But there must be safeguards in place. I have set out the minimum safeguards involving the police. To remove designated premises supervisors would wreck the balance we have achieved between deregulation and protection.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his full response. He will not be surprised to hear that I am not entirely satisfied. Members on all sides of the Committee have good reason to believe that the function of the designated premises supervisor is unclear. I urge the Minister and his officials to consider between now and Report stage my points about the functions of the designated premises supervisor. We understand what he says about policing and the need to ensure proper management of all licensed premises, but if for smaller owner-run pubs it is all right for the personal licence holder to be the designated premises supervisor, why is it not all right for larger organisations?
	We do not understand the need for the additional layer, not least for the reason I suggested, that there appears to be no particular function that such a supervisor could or should carry out over and above that—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: A designated premises supervisor is a personal licence holder. There may be a number of personal licence holders working at the premises. The designation tells the police who is in charge; that is all. There is no additional layer of bureaucracy.

Baroness Buscombe: I am not satisfied that it is necessary to have a specific separate person as a designated premises supervisor. Will the Minister and his officials consider what Members of the Committee have said? The debate on this subject will continue on the forthcoming amendments. We recognise the complexity of the existing regime, but the Government would be well advised to return to the proposals set out in the White Paper—to which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred earlier—and to reconsider whether it is necessary to have an extra layer which does not add to policing or the proper management of the premises. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: moved Amendment No. 155:
	Page 9, line 5, leave out ", in relation to a premises licence,"

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Perhaps I may briefly finger my scalpel on this issue. Having heard the Minister I went through a variety of emotions. He began by describing the role as if it were an area manager covering a number of pubs. It became clear as he was questioned that the police will ensure that there is one person who is a designated premises supervisor and they will not permit him to be designated for more than one premises. It will be permissible for him to have more than one premises but it will not be practical because the police will object.
	The Minister had the attractive idea of having the name above the pub door, for which I have a great deal of sympathy. But we have in essence two boxes; the premises licence and the personal licence. The Minister is putting an arch between the two, which is the present licensing system; namely, having above the door of the pub the name of the designated premises supervisor, as we do at present. We have taken the present licensing system and added two more boxes to it. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The scalpel kills as surely as the cleaver if it is wielded inexpertly. I am not saying for a moment that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is inexpert; he is clearly extremely expert. If the designated premises supervisor is not identified in the original premises licence or any premises licence as subsequently amended at the time when the application is made, which is when full consideration is given to the circumstances of the licence, there is no opportunity to include what is entirely relevant to local people, the police, the licensing authority—everyone concerned with the licensing objectives of public protection, health and safety, public nuisance and so on: who is going to be in charge. Surely this is precisely the time at which we should name the person who is going to be in charge.

Lord Redesdale: We shall return to this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Before calling Amendment No. 156, I must inform the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 157 because of pre-emption.

Lord Redesdale: moved Amendment No. 156:
	Page 9, line 6, leave out from "individual" to end of line 7 and insert "personal licence holder who has obtained the signed consent of the premises licence holder to such designation and served the prescribed form upon the chief officer of police and the relevant licensing authority"

Lord Redesdale: I give an undertaking that I shall not mention scalpels or any form of cutlery or silverware. This amendment does not remove the designated supervisor, but really deals with some of the arguments associated with the clause.
	There are two independent arguments here. One is concerned with the system built up around the designated premises supervisor and the other with the powers of the police to object to the individual named as the designated premises supervisor. They are not dependent on each other, but are separate aspects of the Bill.
	The amendments as proposed by the industry to the procedures and obligations surrounding the designated premises supervisors are supported by the British Beer & Pubs Association, the British Hospitality Association, the Restaurant Association, the Association of Multiple Retailers, Business in Sport and Leisure and the British Retail Consortium. Members of the Committee will be aware that this represents a very large and diverse part of the leisure and hospitality market. Those organisations have discussed the issues with the Local Government Association which agrees that the procedures are unnecessary. The police have expressed their concern that the personal licence holder is known to the premises licence holder. This is covered by the requirement to obtain the consent of the premises licence holder.
	The industry has discussed the issues at length with the Government and is very disappointed that the arguments they have made have not received any robust response from them. The industry itself proposed the concept of split licensing and, in its original proposals long before the White Paper, recognised that the personal licence holder would need to be known to the authorities and that this information would need to be registered. It therefore has no quarrel with the need to identify and register the premises supervisor.
	However, it does not support the linkage to the premises licence holder through the requirement to regard the change of licensee as a variation of the premises licence and the requirement to write the name of the designated premises supervisor in the premises licence.
	The premises licence should stand alone as it is concerned with the suitability of any particular premises to provide alcohol and/or public entertainment at the time and under the conditions granted for it. This must stand irrespective of the personal licensee who has the duty and the responsibility to uphold the terms of the licence and the law in general.
	The consequence of this linkage is seen in the series of obligations that arise from that linkage. The name of the designated premises supervisor must be given at the time of application for a new licence. This person will not always be identified at the time of application. For example, a supermarket chain obtaining a licence may not even appoint the relevant manager until very near the first opening day. It should make no difference to the application for a premises licence as to who will be responsible for the licence, as long as he or she is properly qualified under the Act.
	The premises licence must be altered every time there is a change of manager. That can happen very frequently in the larger businesses where managers are constantly moving for career development or other reasons.
	The White Paper expressly stated that on taking up responsibility for a business the licensee should,
	"normally do no more than simply register his or her arrival with his local police and the licensing authority by a letter covering a copy of the personal licence".
	The process described in the Bill is anything but simple. At this point I say that I believe that the light touch to which the noble Lord alluded perhaps slightly understates the complexity of the situation. In discussions with the DCMS the industry has suggested that the name of the licensee be displayed at the premises. That obviates the need for the name to be included on the premises licence and can be very easily changed on the arrival of a new designated premises supervisor. In his earlier and very detailed response, I believe that the Minister said that he personally thought that that is an excellent idea. I very much hope that he will be taking it up with the officials at DCMS.
	The Bill also requires the name of the designated premises supervisor to appear on the operating schedule. That is completely unnecessary as the operating schedule is concerned exclusively with the premises. That would have to be changed and re-submitted every time a manager changed.
	The requirement also to name the premises supervisor in applying for a new licence under the transitional arrangements poses problems as it will be around six months before the licence is confirmed. The designated premises supervisor might well have moved on by then. What purpose does it serve to have this name? Surely, the premises licence is about the premises, not about who happens to be running them at the time.
	The industry merely wishes to keep the process simple. It recognises the burden that would fall on local government through the paper chase that would result from the attachment of the individual name to the premises licence. Simple notification, a duty laid strictly on the business, is the simple and effective way to achieve everyone's goal.
	I turn to the police powers to object to the transfer of a personal licence holder. Nothing in the arguments about the simplification of the system of notification of the designated premises supervisor precludes the police objecting on receiving such notification. But should the police have these powers? Do they need them? Do they really provide any safeguard? Are these powers proportionate to the harm envisaged? It is a question of whether the uncertainty introduced by these powers is truly justified. The police argue—the Government support them—that it is necessary. The argument runs that where a personal licence holder may have an infringement recorded against his licence, but that it is minor and no proceeding to revoke the licence has been taken and he wants to take over premises with a history of infringement such as drug dealing, the police should be able to object to that licensee.
	Do minor traffic offences result in a motorist being prevented from driving on certain roads? Surely, a minor infringement is just that. If the courts have decided a suitable punishment, should the licensee be in double jeopardy in that he is prevented from pursuing his or her chosen career? Is it not arguable that such a licensee, having had such a warning, might even be a more diligent licensee as a result?
	Surely, premises with a history should be dealt with. One of the weaknesses of the current system is that such premises are not dealt with. The problem of the particular business should be dealt with and closed if necessary. The police are being given the power to decide who runs a "dodgy business".
	These provisions re-introduce the "fit and proper" test by the back door, which is something which the White Paper set out manifestly not to do. The police also seem to want to vet potential licensees on the basis that they might have criminal connections. If the licensee is a criminal then he or she must be brought to trial for such crimes. To seek to prevent them running a pub or a supermarket does not really make sense. We want the police to concentrate on criminality.
	How indeed would the licensing authority, whether or not such a person is identified by the police, be prevented from operating or managing a particular pub, club or supermarket since by definition there is no hard evidence on what basis such a decision could be made?
	I apologise for the length of the explanation of these amendments, but this is a complicated area. I hope that the Government can give some indication of why they find the amendment unacceptable. We are not trying to remove the designated premises supervisor. I look forward to the Government's reply. I beg to move.

Lord Avebury: In an earlier amendment the noble Lord said that powers were necessary because a designated premises licence holder in one place might not be suitable for another. He quoted as an instance the fact that a person had a conviction for selling alcohol to under-aged minors or that he had a conviction relating to drugs; and that the premises to which he was being assigned, presumably by the employer, had a history of one or other of such activities taking place.
	It seems that there would be two classes of designated premises licence holders—those who did not have any conviction, so there could be no conceivable objection by the police to employers moving them from one place to another throughout the country; and those with some convictions recorded against them. They would not be sufficient for the individuals to be struck off the register but there would be limits on the nature of the premises to which they could be assigned.
	If the only reason for the system is to allow the police to confirm the transfer of a person from one licensed premises to another, why not say so on the face of the Bill? Cannot employers be given total discretion to move personnel from one supermarket or pub to another as they see fit in exercising their management powers—so long as the employee does not have any criminal convictions? If the only reason for placing restrictions on the appointment of a person to a particular premises is that a conviction awarded by a court bears some relationship to the previous history of the premises concerned, that should be dealt with as a special case.

Baroness Buscombe: I support Amendments Nos. 156, 238 and 242 to which my name and that of my noble friend Lord Luke have been added.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was asked for a robust response. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, can have a robust response. Frankly, these amendments are nonsense. Amendment No. 156 says that a designated premises supervisor would actively have to obtain the signed consent of the premises licence holder to fill that role and to notify the police that he had taken up the position. The designated premises supervisor is the person employed to manage the premises—or he is the person managing the premises who also holds the premises licence. I assume that Amendment No. 156 does not apply to those circumstances.
	In what circumstances does an employer actively have to seek the signed consent of his employer to do his or her job? In real life, the contract of employment represents an explicit permission on the part of an employer for an individual to work at a particular premises. Imagine the situation where one applied for a position, got the job, then had to ask the boss for permission to turn up. That is what the amendment would require. The premises supervisor would be required to notify the police that he had taken up the job. That is the job of the premises licence holder; it is not to be shirked by putting the duty on the designated premises supervisor.
	The Bill makes the premises licence holder responsible for variation of the licence, including the premises supervisor, for good reason—where one has corporate ownership. If a business wants to change its premises supervisor, that is the responsibility of the business, not of the premises supervisor, as Amendment No. 156 suggests. One would not employ a premises supervisor, then say, "Good luck. Welcome to the job. Now make sure you tell the police you have arrived." That is the responsibility of the business.
	Amendments Nos. 238 and 242 would remove the bulk of Clause 40, which covers the procedures to be followed when an individual wishes to cease to be the designated supervisor for a particular premises. In recognition of the particular circumstances of some part of the industry, the clause contains safeguards for the industry. It requires the premises supervisor to notify the holder of the premises licence once he has made the final decision and notified the licensing authority of his or her intention—not just tell the licensing authority or the police, or both, but tell his employer. It is only right that the employer should be notified. The amendments would remove that requirement.
	There is nothing burdensome about the provisions and I have set out the reasons for them. These amendments are particularly bizarre.

Lord Redesdale: I asked for a robust response and I got one. I admit that the purpose of the amendments is to make sense of the designated premises supervisor. The Minister's response clearly shows that I should move back to the position of earlier amendments and object altogether to the inclusion of the clause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 157 not moved.]
	Clause 15 agreed to.
	Clause 16 agreed to.
	Clause 17 [Application for premises licence]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 158:
	Page 10, line 26, at beginning insert "where the premises are of a prescribed description,"

Baroness Buscombe: This amendment is designed to probe only. Clause 17 sets out the application process for a premises licence. An application must be accompanied by an operating schedule and a plan of the premises—both in the format to be prescribed. That may seem a reasonable obligation for any premises licence holder to undertake to procure a licence. However, some premises that are used to paying £30 per annum—as at present—to operate the village pub may feel burdened by what appears to them to be added administration, greater bureaucracy and more red tape.
	The amendment proposes that operating schedules need only be produced for certain types of premises. It is deliberately broad and does not focus on physical size or capacity. However, several forthcoming amendments deal with capacity. If a mandatory capacity were imposed, to be set out in the operating schedule, our amendment might go some way to exempting small village pubs from having to specify numbers.
	The principle behind the amendment is simple. Premises range from a local pub in a rural area that serves a handful of regulars each day to a busy nightclub open until 3 a.m. and holding many hundreds of people. While it is admirable to try to impose one-size-fits-all legislation on a system, perhaps it is unrealistic. The small country pub might have problems trying to outline the steps it proposed taking to promote licensing objectives as detailed by subjection (4)(b).
	Perhaps a balance can be reached between consistency and uniformity on the one hand and flexibility to suit certain circumstances on the other. It is clear that the Government realise the need for such a balance. Paragraph 38 of the guidance framework states:
	"This section would underline the principle of proportionality. It would recommend that conditions are tailored to the particular circumstances, style and characteristics of the individual premises concerned. Standardised conditions often result in burdensome, unnecessary and costly conditions being attached to small venues that are not causing any problems in a community".
	I hope that as we discuss the details of premises licences in Part 3, the Government will continue to have regard to the need for such proportionality as opposed to standardised conditions. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I fear that the phrase "operating schedule" fills some people with dread. It has a bureaucratic ring to it. We might have alighted upon a happier phrase but it is the one we are using. I reassure the noble Baroness and people who are anxious about the issue that there is no cause for anxiety.
	The average size pub will be able to list its operating schedule by filling one sheet of A4—perhaps two at the absolute outside. It is meant to be a non-bureaucratic exercise. It is clearly needed for all licensed premises. Therefore, we are ensuring that it covers every conceivable licensed circumstance.
	We recognise the strength of the noble Baroness's point that for the small village pub the schedule should not be a draconian document requiring endless hours of burning the midnight oil for the pub to meet its obligations. Far from it. It seeks to specify the basis on which it operates as succinctly as possible. For some larger premises or events the document is bound to be a little more involved. However, I believe that the main burden of the noble Baroness's argument concerned small premises. I give way to the noble Lord.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Will the regulations make a distinction between the two types of premises so that the country pub will not be caught up in the bureaucracy that is envisaged for much larger premises? What will be the position as regards the regulations?

Lord Davies of Oldham: The licensing authority will be aware of the aspects on which it needs reassurance before granting licences in respect of premises with differing roles in the community. The licensing authority will be familiar with those roles. A licensing authority will be able to determine the significant difference between a small village pub and large urban premises that may carry on a whole range of functions which require a clear specification of the basis of the business and how it is to be carried out.
	I do not seek to decry the significance of the operating schedule. It is a crucial part of the basis on which the licence is issued. It is also the crucial document that identifies for authorities seeking to enforce the law—primarily the police—what the nature of the licence is and what functions the relevant premises are entitled to carry out. We shall seek to ensure that local authorities discriminate between large and small businesses. Regulations will stipulate that businesses of a certain size carrying out a certain range of functions are to be defined differently to the small village pub to which reference has been made.
	The strength of the legislation lies in its power to bring a wide range of premises within one framework for licensing. As regards the concern that the operating schedule may cause anxiety to a potential licensee, I point out that it will deliver benefits to the licensing authority, responsible authorities, interested parties and potential licensees. Licensing authorities will consider the operating schedule with any other accompanying material and must grant the licence as applied for unless representations have been made that are critical of it. We envisage that in the majority of cases the granting of an application will constitute an administrative process. But without the requirement to submit such a document, licensing authorities would not have the basic information they require to process applications without holding costly hearings. We should not forget that all applications and renewals and almost all changes to a justice's licence to sell alcohol require a full hearing before the magistrates' court which represents a significant investment of time and money. The operating schedule will do away with that and replace it with a much less onerous system.
	The operating schedule may become the focus of a process of genuine partnership between the licensing authority and licensees. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment. Anxieties have been properly expressed but clearly the measure will not constitute a great bureaucratic demand but one that differentiates between the small pub and the big enterprise with a whole range of obligations necessarily imposed upon it. It will give a clearer specification to the community and to the enforcement authorities of what is required. For the vast majority of small operations and small pubs the measure should constitute an enormous advantage rather than a disadvantage.

Lord Avebury: The noble Lord said that the operating schedule would not impose great bureaucratic burdens on the small village pub and that for the average size pub the schedule would comprise one or two sides of A4. However, he did not say what would be included in the operating schedule for larger establishments such as big clubs which might hold as many as 1,500 people. Obviously, as he said, there would be more stringent requirements for those establishments. We should like to know what they are. Will the operating schedule for large establishments extend to matters that go beyond what happens within the establishment itself but which are relevant to a local authority's consideration of an application? One obviously assumes that the operating schedule will detail the number of hours and the times at which the establishment would be open, but will it also refer to such matters as the management of traffic within the periphery of the establishment itself?
	Will the operating schedule detail the measures that the relevant enterprise should take to prevent nuisance such as the scattering of litter in its neighbourhood and any other matters connected with the objectives of the Bill, including the reduction of crime and disorder?

Lord Davies of Oldham: The operating schedule relates primarily to what takes place within the premises, the car park attached to the premises and the immediate environment. The noble Lord rightly identifies that for a large business the schedule will be extensive. It will certainly specify hours of opening, areas in which children may be present and areas in which certain kinds of entertainment may take place and so on. Therefore, the schedule will quite rightly be extensive where a wide range of entertainment and activities take place.
	However, the schedule will not refer to traffic regulation in the vicinity of the enterprise. The capacity of the car park for those who wish to attend the premises is an important consideration. That goes without saying. However, we cannot go too far in that direction. We cannot investigate circumstances where it is alleged that litter has been dropped by a patron of the relevant premises. It would be impossible to prove that. The operating schedule operates within a framework that is concerned primarily with what takes place within the premises concerned.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the noble Lord for his response. This debate has been worthwhile given that we are discussing a broad range of premises that are to be considered in relation to the operating schedule. As I said, this is a probing amendment. I shall revert to representatives of the industry to ensure that they are happy with the assurances that the noble Lord has given today. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I must inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 159 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 160 for reasons of pre-emption.

[Amendment No. 159 not moved.]

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 160:
	Page 10, line 30, leave out from "a" to end of line 33 and insert "notice in the prescribed form and including a statement of the prescribed information in respect of the individual whom the holder wishes to nominate as the premises supervisor, and a form of consent in the prescribed form given by that individual."

Baroness Buscombe: I was in two minds as to whether to move this large group of amendments given the debate that has already taken place in relation to designated premises and licence holders. On balance I have decided to make a brief plea to the Government. Therefore, I shall refer to the following amendments as they involve a slightly separate point to those already covered.
	In moving Amendment No. 160, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 163, 181, 183, 203, 219, 229 to 231, the Question that Clauses 37 to 40 stand part, and to Amendments Nos. 239, 240, 241, 250, 258, 441, 442, 450, 452, 455, 456, 457, 458, 460 and 462.
	One of the purposes of the new Bill is to streamline the licensing regime in England and Wales. It achieves that in a number of ways, but in particular by having separate premises and personal licences. That matter has already been debated. The two are connected in that no supply of alcohol may be made from any premises unless there is a premises supervisor who holds a personal licence which has not been suspended. In addition, every supply of alcohol must be made or authorised by a person holding a personal licence. In many respects the position is analogous to vehicle and driving licences. A vehicle must be licensed and can be driven only by someone with a driving licence.
	However, unlike the position with a vehicle, a premises licence must specify the designated premises supervisor. If there is a change in the identity of the premises supervisor, an application must be made to the licensing authority for a variation of the premises licence in order to specify another individual. Such an application involves a degree of formality and expense and gives the chief officer of police for the relevant area an opportunity to object to the variation of the premises licence, thereby preventing the appointment of a new premises supervisor.
	We believe that that procedure is unnecessarily bureaucratic, given that there is need only for a notice to be given to the licensing authority. Furthermore—and this is the important point—it is unnecessary because the individual concerned would have been vetted and found to be suitable if he has been granted a personal licence. We cannot see any need whatever, therefore, for this further vetting by the chief officer of police. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have looked at paragraph after paragraph of my speaking notes and I realise that I have said it all already. I hope that the Committee wishes to be spared that repetition. As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has not dealt with all the amendments in the group in detail, I hope she will forgive me if I also do not.
	However, I want to repeat the simple phrase with which I virtually finished my long speech on Amendment No. 154. Of course it is true that the qualification for holding a personal licence is the fundamental one of being able to serve alcohol. It is also true that the designated premises supervisor declaration does not add much. But, the designation of a premises supervisor tells the police and those who need to know who is in charge. That is why we have it here.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I hear what he has said. As I said in relation to previous amendments, we are not satisfied of the need for a designated premises supervisor in the sense that, for example, one could have a manager of any business in charge. We are not clear why there should be a separation in this way. But we shall think about the matter very carefully. We hope that the Minister will read what we have said in Hansard. These concerns have been echoed throughout industry and among Members of the Committee today. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: moved Amendment No. 161:
	Page 10, line 34, leave out "the prescribed form" and insert "such form as may be required by the licensing authority"

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I move Amendment No. 161 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, who is not able to be here. The requirement in Clause 17(4) is that an operating schedule be submitted with each application for a licence. That matter was discussed in relation to Amendment No. 158. It is intended that the operating schedule will set out such detail about how the premises will be operated, including times of opening and closing. I shall not go into that issue because it was covered in Amendment No. 158.
	The purpose of Amendment No. 161 is to change the position. Instead of a centrally prescribed form, local authorities would have the right to decide. In response to Amendment No. 158, the noble Lord said:
	"The local authority will know",
	when referring to the information that they would need. That is exactly the point I make in the amendment: the local authority will know what is required. That requirement might be very different between local authorities. There is nothing to say that each area will conform with another. We have covered the difference between the large and the small, but even then there is a difference between—for example—central and outer London.
	The schedule will be an important document for both the licensing authority determining the application and for those who will have to consider whether they will be affected by the operation and may wish to object. There will be no other information available on which to understand when and how the licence will be operated.
	Again, in reply to Amendment No. 158, the Minister said exactly that; that without the schedule the local authority would not have the necessary information. He also said that the Bill was intended to create a less onerous system. I do not think that is correct. Less onerous for whom? Certainly, at the moment it is not less onerous for the local authority because the burden is on the licensing court. All that will be transferred to the local authority.
	I consider that the Government's proposal in this clause—that this document and the information required on it will be prescribed centrally by their officials and that no other form will be acceptable, whether the application is to operate in Eastbourne, Blackpool or London—is not good enough. It is very important that licensing authorities should be free to require different information according to the needs of their local areas.
	If applicants believe that a request for information of a certain nature is unreasonable or unlawful, they can say so. If necessary, they can challenge the matter in the courts. I think that local authorities should be able to set out their own requirements for information they require. I beg to move.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I hope my noble friend will forgive me, but I have some difficulty with what is proposed. Having very different forms in different parts of the country, perhaps in adjacent local authorities, and the possibility that local authorities might change the nature of the form from time to time, would make it enormously burdensome for companies that operate a range of public houses or licensed premises. Some standard format is essential if there is not to be an unreasonable burden on multiple licensed premises' operators.
	Within Clause 17, in particular in subsections (3) and (4), there is more than enough latitude for a local authority to obtain whatever it wishes. I am sorry, but I think that it would be potentially incredibly burdensome and bureaucratic for local authorities to be able to sail away pursuing their own particular requirements for information in respect of premises licences.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for making the points that I was going to make. The differences referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, are not those between areas but those between different premises. The conditions applied to a licence will reflect the various needs of different premises. They will include, of course, some reflection of the area, but they will not be applicable necessarily to all the licences in a particular premises. There are parts of Westminster and of Soho where very different circumstances arise, but there are areas around here in Westminster where one has quiet little pubs which are no different from country pubs. I think that most of us know which they are.
	It would be quite inappropriate for the City of Westminster to have different requirements for operating schedules from other licensing authorities. There is indeed a transfer of a burden from licensing magistrates to local authorities. It is not an increase; it is a transfer of a burden to bodies generally agreed by all those who responded to consultation on this Bill to be more democratically accountable and more appropriate to be the licensing authorities. To give licensing authorities the possibility of huge differences in the way in which applicants have to apply to such an authority for permission would be a huge burden on business and would give no perceptible advantage to those who have to live in the area or to those who would otherwise be involved in representations on a particular application.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for those comments. I am interested in his point about areas within areas. I wonder whether the Government would consider something like the system that operates in countries like Australia, where different rules apply to what might be called tourist hot- spots. Such areas could be in any major city in the country. There may be an area equivalent to Soho in Leeds. The requirements in such areas are different.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I know the road that leads from Manley Ferry to the beach, too.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I cannot claim to know Leeds. I was throwing that out as a possible example, but it could apply to any city. I wonder whether the Government might give some thought to this matter when they draft the forms. I appreciate that there are areas in Westminster—and in all parts of London—which are extremely quiet, but there are other areas that are under different pressures which are a cause of concern. Perhaps he could think about that before the next stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 162:
	Page 10, line 36, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
	"( ) a description of the proposed relevant licensable activities, including such details as may be required by the authority in its statement of licensing policy,"

Baroness Buscombe: In rising to speak to Amendment No. 162, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 301. These amendments are not dissimilar to the previous amendment. The difference in terms of wording is that our amendment makes specific reference to the statement of licensing policy. I shall be brief. I listened to what the Minister said on the previous amendment, but I should like to ask for his view on certain activities that might take place in a particular area and whether the Government believe that this is something they should bear in mind in relation to the operating schedule. As it stands the definition of the operating schedule under Clause 17(4) leaves much to the regulations but also, regarding activities likely to take place at the premises, provides only that there shall be a statement of the relevant licensable activities. One particular area in which such a description would be totally inadequate—certainly in the view of some local authorities—is where striptease and similar forms of entertainment are to be provided in the licensed premises. The Minister must forgive me. I have not yet visited Australia so that may be the sort of area he was referring to.
	At present, local authorities as public entertainment licensing authorities have the ability to place conditions on the provision of such entertainment and can ensure that it does not take place in certain premises where it would be inappropriate, due to the locality. For example, it is common for authorities to have policies which ensure that no such activities take place in premises near places of worship or schools. It is important that licensing authorities should be provided with this type of detail so that they can continue to take well informed decisions. I beg to move.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: In this group of amendments we have Amendment No. 170 which is concerned with the operating schedule. This will give my noble friend Lady Gardner a chance to come at me from the other direction. Amendment No. 170 removes paragraph (h) which states:
	"such other matters as may be prescribed."
	As presently drafted, this surely meets the requirement of my noble friend. This is a parallel issue to what we discussed before when the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, was somewhat concerned at having to defend a difficult position on another matter. The operating schedule is already very extensive in covering the relevant licensable activities, the basic times of opening, any other times of proposed opening, the length of the licence and whether the consumption of alcohol is to be on or off the premises. It also contains steps to promote the licensing objective which in itself could be lengthy, with four sub-sets. Then at the end to have,
	"such other matters as may be prescribed",
	seems to leave an open-ended opportunity to have not one or two sides of A4 paper but many sides, as over time it is considered desirable to prescribe more and more.
	Our debates on earlier amendments left me concerned that there was going to be considerable discrimination between large and small premises, that matters might become complicated and that, over time, the smaller licensed premises might be asked to do more and more, depending on the local authority licensing committee, which would inevitably be risk averse. There are no "brownie points"—there is no mileage—for such a committee in not gathering as much information as it can. Therefore, while one might be able to live with the provisions of Clause 17(4)(a) to (g), paragraph (h) was a bridge too far. We do not need an open-ended possibility for pressure to be applied for regulations to become broader, wider and more extensive over time.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I rise as my Amendment No. 171 is in this group, and I am in favour of the idea of having more control over what is prescribed.
	However, I really rose to say that I do not claim to know anything about the seedy side of Australian life. I realised as the debate went on that your Lordships thought I referred to night-clubs. However, I was referring to tourist zoning, such as where there are different hours and days of shop opening. Singapore is the same: if an area is considered to have many tourists, it is treated differently from other parts.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Let me begin by defending my noble friend. The part of Australia to which he referred was not the seedy side but a road with substantial hostelries at which one could get a drink in large company. So I can reassure the noble Baroness that my noble friend is no more acquainted with the seedy side of Australia than she or I.
	On the general issues, it is quite clear from the representations made on these amendments that there are divided counsels on the Opposition Benches. The reason why counsels are divided is because the Front Bench is operating at one extreme with regard to their amendment, while the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is operating at the other extreme. The Government are, rightly, balanced and are in the middle, between those two extremes. This is the beauty of the measure. We seek to strike a balance between the need—

Baroness Buscombe: I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me, I feel the need to intervene. As I have said, I listened to the Minister in relation to previous amendments, and this was certainly not something that I was pushing. To that extent, I am certainly not at the opposite end of the spectrum to my noble friend Lord Hodgson. However, this is a question I believe should be aired because it is of concern to local authorities. As we are discussing this general area, I think that it merits a response from the Government.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I understand what the noble Baroness says. I did not seek to make too big a point of this, but the arguments about the amendments come from different perspectives. That suggests that the Government have got it all just about right: we have a balance between the need to prevent crime, disorder and public nuisance, to ensure public safety and to protect children from harm and to reduce the regulatory burden on industry—an express objective of the Bill.
	Irrespective of the force with which noble Lords have presented their amendments, I am pointing out the obvious fact that, were they to be carried, the balance in the Bill would be severely upset. After all, we want a thriving hospitality and leisure industry. We all know how important that is to the country because of the money involved. It is right that we create a level playing field. The operating schedule is a key tool for achieving that balance.
	Wherever they are based, businesses need to know what information they must provide on their schedules. That will allow swift, proportionate decisions to be taken to enable them to operate in a professional and responsible way. To allow licensing authorities in effect to specify their own form of operating schedules would undermine that objective of uniformity. It would also run counter to the Bill's central deregulatory approach, which relies to a large extent on the applicant describing how he or she intends to carry on licensable activities on the premises.
	Problems have arisen in the past where licensing authorities have imposed a raft of standard conditions irrespective of whether they were necessary. The Bill sets out a simple system based on the four clear objectives which, while providing for flexibility, provide the foundation for the new system and should eliminate some of the inconsistencies of the current system without adding to—in fact, reducing—the amount of bureaucracy involved.
	Although the aim is to minimise the administrative burden on applicants, the Secretary of State's power to add further matters to the list of those that must be included in the operating schedule is necessary to ensure that if, in the light of experience, it proves desirable for the operating schedule to contain additional information—for example, whether meals will be served or the hours for which children will be admitted—that may be provided for quickly and flexibly. Its use would be subject to the negative resolution of Parliament. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, which reported favourably on the Bill, was content with that power and did not regard it as excessive.
	One problem with the current system is that the detailed technical and administrative processes are set out in primary legislation, and we have had to wait for almost 40 years for parliamentary time to change them. By allowing the Secretary of State that power, changes can be made quickly, efficiently and across the board—again, supporting the level playing field. So that is the basis for that power of the Secretary of State, which I defend against the amendments.
	I recognise that the amendments are probing amendments. We have now had substantial debate about how the operating schedule will operate. I hope that it will be recognised that the Government have the balance of the Bill about right, and that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Buscombe: I want briefly to refer to paragraph (g), as have other Members of the Committee, which is dealt with in a later amendment that I shall not now move. I hope that it will become clear to all prospective premises licence holders what,
	"the steps it proposes to take to promote the licensing objectives",
	means. I can imagine most individuals trying to fill out an application form and schedule scratching their heads and asking themselves, "What does that mean?", when all they want to do is open a business and get on with it. We hope for clarity.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I share that objective with the noble Baroness: there should be clarity. That is part of the reason that we have sought to safeguard the Secretary of State's role in issuing guidance.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Does the Minister realistically think that any licensed premises could meet the provisions of Clause 17(4)(a) to (h) on one side or, at most, two sides of A4 paper?

Lord Davies of Oldham: In our earlier debate, I said that the small village or urban pub of discreet pretensions will be able to meet its obligations in less space than a sheet of A4. Of course, where there are other considerations—as I said earlier, those overwhelmingly relate to those establishments that have much more multifarious roles than that of the ordinary village pub—the schedule will be a little longer. The noble Lord will recall that an earlier amendment concerned how onerous the provision will be for the average small hostelry. I sought to give reassurance about that, and I reiterate that assurance.

Baroness Buscombe: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 163 to 164 not moved.]

Lord Geddes: Before I call Amendment No. 165, I advise the Committee that if it is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 166 due to pre-emption.

Viscount Falkland: moved Amendment No. 165:
	Page 11, line 5, at end insert "having regard to the licensing statement of the local authority,
	( ) a short description of the application which may be included in any notice advertising the application, and"

Viscount Falkland: As drafted, there is no obligation under the Bill on the licensee to have regard to the licensing authority's licensing statement. That may create unnecessary complication when applications must be decided. It is surely better for applicants to prepare their operating schedules in the light of the licensing objectives and the licensing statement. One problem with the existing system of notification is that it is not clear from the notice received from the magistrates or posted on windows exactly what an application is for, unless a local resident goes to the magistrates' court to consult the papers.
	Where there are many applications in an area, as can happen, it will be a considerable burden on local residents to try to find out what each application is all about, and on the licensing authority to explain it. The amendment would ease that burden considerably and ensure that residents did not have to object to everything simply to create time for them to consult the papers and understand what the application was for.
	Within that subject, I speak also to Amendment No. 303, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. It would insert the words:
	"having regard to the licensing statement of the licensing authority . . . a short description of the application which may be included in any notice advertising the application".
	The two amendments are closely related. I beg to move.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Amendment No. 172 concerns regulations regarding the advertising and promotion of an application under Clause 17(5). It is a probing amendment, but I should be grateful for an assurance from the Minister about the degree to which this is expected to be extensive and costly. As I said earlier, 35,000 public houses are owner-managed. They are not necessarily enormously profitable; they are small businesses of a classic kind. The regulations required under subsection (5) could be perfectly reasonable. However, they could be very extensive and expensive. The requirement to give notice to each responsible authority and such other persons as may be prescribed could also be a burdensome activity.
	It would be helpful if the Minister could explain the thinking behind this provision and give reassurance that this will not be an unnecessary and undue burden for people seeking to run sensible licensed premises.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful for the manner in which the noble Lords have moved their amendments. In the Bill, we are seeking to ensure that there is a balance between the removal of red tape for the industry and proper and sensible safeguards for the public. That is why some of these amendments are rather more dramatic in their effect than others.
	Amendment No. 172 would have one very unfair effect and one very dangerous effect. It would remove the requirement for an applicant for a premises licence to advertise their application to interested parties; namely, local residents, businesses and their representatives. This would deny those parties the opportunity to make representations about developments in their locality that might affect their lives and businesses directly. I do not accept that the majority of the public would consider this omission as being acceptable.
	Furthermore, it would even remove the requirement to notify those bodies which are expert when it comes to judging the merits of applications against the promotion of the declared licensing objectives. I am referring here to the police, the fire authority, the environmental health authority and others. The Government consider it quite unacceptable to place obstacles in the way of an appropriate assessment of the likely impact of an application on the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. The amendment is unacceptable.
	Amendment No. 209 seeks to remove the obligation on the part of the applicant for a provisional statement to similarly advertise and notify his application through which local residents and businesses are kept fully informed about planned developments in their neighbourhood and can, along with the responsible authorities, make representations about what is being planned at an early stage. Provisional statements are designed to give developers of all shapes and sizes a degree of confidence but no guarantee that premises which they are developing, building or extending will be able to be used in the way that they expect in respect of the carrying on of licensable activities when the work is finally completed.
	Applications for provisional statements will be advertised in the same way as applications for full licences. Interested parties and responsible authorities will be able to make their representations in the usual way.
	I want to reassure the noble Lord that the rights of residents are at the cornerstone of the Bill from the earliest stages. Anything that seeks to remove their rights to be informed of new developments in their areas is not acceptable. That cannot be right. If local residents cannot engage with the issue at an early stage, developers could have no confidence, if they continue with their planned development, that a premises licence is likely to be forthcoming when applied for at a later stage. In those circumstances, the investment will possibly not be made. It serves no one's interest to make this change which increases uncertainty in an area in which one would be seeking to provide assurance.
	The amendments in this group seek to ensure that the applicant submits a short description of their application or variation of a club's premises certificate or their variation of a premises licence, along with other relevant paperwork. The description would then be used by the licensing authority to advertise the application or variation.
	However, even if the licensing authority is required to advertise the application—which it is not—the amendments are unnecessary and would result in nothing more than an increase of paperwork and red tape for the applicant. The fact of the matter is that the Bill makes it crystal clear that it is the responsibility of the applicant—not the licensing authority—to advertise his or her application in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State and to notify the responsible authorities. These regulations are likely to specify what information is required in the advertisement and how widely it should be published. It will be a relatively straightforward matter for the licensing authority to determine whether an applicant has complied with the necessary advertising requirements.
	The Bill is designed to rid the licensing system of a great deal of the current bureaucracy, not to increase it. I hope that I have established that in resisting these amendments I am seeking to protect a system which is clear, which lays obligations where they should be laid, but clear and appropriate obligations. On that basis, perhaps noble Lords will feel reassured about the amendments that they have proposed and be prepared not to press them.

Viscount Falkland: I accept what the noble Lord has said. My amendments are concerned with residents and with absolutely clarity when applications are made. I am not convinced that more clarity is proposed than currently exists in the Bill. My amendment seeks to make matters even clearer, so that people know exactly what is proposed in relation to the licensing objectives. This is a probing amendment. This is a complicated area—much more complicated than it appears on the surface. I make no secret of the fact that many on these Benches are concerned with the position of residents in relation to the legislation. Residents should be in a position to understand the provisions fully and to be able to act when necessary.
	I shall read the noble Lord's remarks in Hansard. If necessary, I should like to speak to him before the next stage of the Bill; otherwise, I shall wait and see what happens. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 166 not moved.]

Lord Redesdale: moved Amendment No. 167:
	Page 11, line 5, at end insert—
	"( ) the maximum capacity of the premises, and"

Lord Redesdale: I speak to Amendments Nos. 167 and 304. This is a brief probing amendment to establish the Government's position on maximum capacity for premises. We do not intend to press the amendment, but to obtain an indication of government thinking at this stage on maximum capacity in premises. I beg to move.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: We have been debating these matters for four hours and I am beginning to lose my train of thought. I would not say that my Amendments Nos. 193, 304 and 310 are probing because I believe that they are of immense importance for public safety. The proposed new clause will attach a condition to the granting of a licence that specifies clearly the maximum permitted occupancy figure when the premises are being used for a licensable activity. In addition, it states that the figure must be specified on the licence itself.
	The amendment also proposes that the maximum permitted occupancy figure must be determined by the licensing authority in consultation with the police, the fire authority and the responsible authority as defined in Clause 13(4)(d).
	Concern has been expressed by the Local Government Association that a maximum permitted occupancy requirement is not part of the Bill at present. That concern is shared by the Association of Chief Police Officers and a number of members of the public. A common concern relates to the safety of members of the public who will attend licensed premises. It was agreed in relation to Clause 4 that public safety is one of the objectives. I believe that the new clause would allow the proper examination of premises. I do not suggest that that would not take place; but if a licence included a reference to numbers, proper provision could be made to ensure, for example, that the toilet facilities were adequate and that the requisite number of exits were available.
	History shows that panic can ensue in premises where fire breaks out or where other difficulties emerge. There have been recent examples. There is a clear case for a mandatory capacity being part of the licence. I understand that it is already a requirement for clubs to adhere to a mandatory capacity limit. It must surely follow that a similar provision should form part of this Bill.
	It is a question of common sense that in considering the granting of a licence the licensing authority should be able to satisfy itself that public nuisance, crime and disorder are not exacerbated by the kind of behaviour that may result from overcrowding of the premises.
	The only people who will worry about the need for a maximum occupancy figure are the minority of operators who routinely overcrowd their premises to dangerous levels. Anyone walking along streets in London, or in university towns, where crowds of people attempt to get into and out of premises will see that such a provision is necessary. The people who would worry would be those seeking to make the maximum profit from the sale of alcohol. I make no excuse for saying that.
	Furthermore, I remind the Committee that, in the past, when pubs on one side of the Edgware Road closed at half-past ten, people moved across to the Paddington area, where they stayed open until 11 o'clock. I can envisage that, when other operators are shutting at a reasonable time—reasonable in modern-day terms: midnight or one o'clock in the morning—and others stay open, there will be a move towards the places that are open. They may not have been the first choice of clients at the start of the evening, but when they have had sufficient alcohol they may feel that they want to continue drinking and will go to a place that is already overcrowded.
	Public safety should not be put at risk for the sake of profit by those who want to abuse the absence of permitted occupancy figures. These amendments would strengthen the Bill and would provide protection for the public—both those who will use the licensed premises and passers-by. This place should provide the licensing authorities with the legislative tools that they will need when deciding on the numbers of people who can enjoy the benefits of a licensed premises.

Lord Avebury: I have a great deal of sympathy with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, but having a maximum permitted occupancy figure in a single establishment may not satisfy the requirement that he has advanced of the licensing policy, through the awarding of licences, meeting the objectives set out in the Bill.
	If an establishment had the necessary number of technical facilities—the noble Lord mentioned two: fire escapes and toilets—in proportion to the number of people who will fit into the premises, the local authority would have no other reason for declining to grant the licence. What I thought the noble Lord was getting at was the possibility of an overall limit being put on the number of people who would be present in all the establishments within a given area. That is where problems will arise in relation to the licensing objectives of the Bill. It may not be a matter of one single establishment—although some are very large; some premises take 1,500 people and that in itself is a substantial cause of crime and disorder in an area. But when an area has several establishments of that size, it is an almost certain recipe for problems in the neighbourhood. Yet there is nothing in the awarding of licences that takes that into consideration.
	The noble Lord has put his finger on the lack of powers in the Bill to deal with the overall figure of attendance at all the establishments in a given locality; and even if one one specific licence could be subject to a limit of this kind, it would not solve the problem.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support the view that there should be a clear definition in safety terms of the permitted number of people per establishment. There is a precedent in the Greater London Authority's late-night music and dancing licences. The authority was always careful to ensure a limit on the number of people entering a premises. The most difficult aspect is the enforcement of such a limit. It is extremely difficult to enforce restrictions on numbers.

Baroness Buscombe: I have put my name to Amendment No. 167, and I also support Amendment No. 301 to which my name and that of my noble friend Lord Luke have been added. This is a very difficult area. I agree with the tone of noble Lord, Lord Redesdale: we look to the Government to say what their feelings are in relation to this difficult issue—difficult because it is hard to consider a "one size fits all" provision. What might be sensible in relation to a large establishment would not necessarily be so in relation to a small country pub.
	As my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has suggested, the real problem is in terms of how such a provision would be policed, particularly in relation to small country pubs. Is it reasonable to require expenditure on a doorman in order to police the capacity of such premises when they merely have a few regulars in on a Friday night?
	I have sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead. This is an important safety issue. Safety is the key. We remember all too clearly the dreadful events at Hillsborough. I do not mean to sound over-dramatic. It is important to realise that we are talking about enormously large establishments. There is no comparison between the country pub and some of the large establishments to which young people throng—perhaps that makes me sound as though I am getting old. I understand that there is something rather "cool" about being in an over- crowded, "hip" establishment, which obviously gives rise to safety concerns.

Baroness Blackstone: I recognise that these are probing amendments and that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is asking me to set out how we see the issue of capacity operating in licensed premises. Of course, one of the key concerns of the Bill is public safety. It is so important that we have enshrined it in the licensing objectives, at the very core of the legislation. Licensing authorities must carry out their functions with a view to promoting the objectives. Furthermore, in his operating schedule the applicant for a licence must describe the steps that he proposes to take to promote those objectives. A club must do the same when applying for a premises certificate.
	As my noble friend Lord Clarke says, it is essential that public safety is assured. That was the essence of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. The Bill gives expert bodies—responsible authorities, such as fire authorities, the police, health and safety authorities and environmental health authorities—a statutory role of making representations on applications for new licences and certificates and the opportunity to call for existing licences to be reviewed on any ground relating to the licensing objectives. These experts may advise the imposition of a maximum capacity to be attached as a condition to premises licences or club premises certificates to the licensing authority if they believe that it is necessary for public safety. We would expect them not to hesitate to do so wherever it is appropriate.
	This closely mirrors what happens in the existing licensing system, where these expert bodies make recommendations to the local authorities and the licensing justices. However, what the amendments would do—I recognise that they are for the most part probing—would be to make a capacity limit compulsory in every case through its specification in the operating schedule or following the receipt by the licensing authority of relevant representations by the licensing authority deciding to impose a maximum occupancy for the premises. That would make the system unnecessarily arbitrary and burdensome.
	We recognise that capacity limits are necessary for some premises. The present licensing justices and local authorities can attach capacity limits at their discretion. The system works, and the only complaints that we have received have come from nightclubs, which regard mandatory capacity limits as a way of defending the virtual monopoly on late night drinking that they currently enjoy. We are keen for there to be greater flexibility for licensed premises and for capacity limits to be imposed when they are necessary, but not otherwise. That is why the Bill will reproduce the system currently in place.
	We should also be clear that, in most cases, the places will already have capacity limits in force under existing fire certificates. If a fire certificate includes certain conditions, it would be unnecessary to reproduce them in a premises licence. If a fire certificate were granted for premises when their future use for licensable activity was not known, the licensing authority and fire authority may wish to impose a new capacity limit that would apply at any time when the licensable activity is taking place. That is why we are allowing licensing authorities to impose capacity limits when they are necessary.
	I should tell my noble friend Lord Clarke that no mandatory capacity figure is imposed on nightclubs under current licensing law. Such conditions are imposed under the discretion of the licensing authority, so nothing will change, but the licensing authority will seek the advice of health and safety experts and the fire authority when necessary. We should not lose sight of the fact that health and safety at work regulations require employers to assess the risk for their workers and others, including customers, who may be affected by their business, and identify what measures are needed to reduce or control the risks. That assessment might well include some consideration of the risk of overcrowding in premises, and ways in which that risk can be controlled.
	The Bill is intended to be flexible. Licensing authorities will be able to attach capacity limits as conditions of licences when it is thought that expert opinion believes that it is necessary and given the other controls in place. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Redesdale: I thank the Minister for that reply. I was particularly concerned about nightclubs that might press the issue as a means of preserving their trade in late night drinking. Also, if maximum capacities were introduced in a mandatory way, it would imply the need for bouncers and doormen on every door, which would change the whole nature of many establishments. That would obviously not be welcome in terms of changing the mentality of drinkers in late night establishments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.34 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Sudan

Lord Avebury: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what help they are giving to secure peace and good governance in Sudan.
	My Lords, we debated Sudan three months ago on a Question by the intrepid and tireless noble Baroness, Lady Cox. Your Lordships may think that there are other great problems that demand our attention, rather than returning to the subject so soon. However, since that debate, the Sudanese government and the SPLA have signed a memorandum of understanding on the cessation of hostilities, which is now to be further developed into a comprehensive peace agreement. I sought a debate to review the progress made and consider what contribution the UK can make to reinforce a peaceful settlement of the war, described by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, as Africa's longest-running conflict.
	There have been allegations of breaches of the ceasefire on both sides, with clashes occurring mainly in oil-producing areas. Provision was made for complaints about violation to be made through a committee set up for the purpose in Machakos. Will the Minister say how the international community might help to reinforce that part of the deal? There was also to be an international team on the ground investigating alleged attacks on civilians. It would be useful to know whether the UK, with our considerable experience of peacekeeping, might offer to provide some of the observers.
	As 15th January approached, there were problems with the agenda. Khartoum said that the constitutional position of the Blue Nile, Nuba mountains and Abyei could not be discussed until further progress had been made on the main question of the position of the south. However, the SPLA claimed a mandate from the people concerned to negotiate on their behalf. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the meeting is on schedule and that the question of the agenda can be solved to the mutual satisfaction of the parties.
	The parties have decided on the allocation of most functional areas of competence to different levels of government, but some key areas are still not covered. Colonel Garang has demanded, for instance, that the south should have the right to issue its own currency, although it is not clear whether he meant that it should be able to do that through a central bank or merely to print notes, as the Scottish banks do in the UK. In either case, a substantial level of banking expertise beyond the present capacity of the new southern entity would be required, and official observers, including Britain, might help to spell that out to the SPLM. They might also help to bridge the gap between parties on oil revenues. The SPLA is demanding 60 per cent, whereas the government have offered 10 per cent. Given that all the discoveries so far have been made in the south, Khartoum needs to be generous if it is to avoid handing an argument to secessionists.
	The SPLA has gone a long way to meet the government by giving up demands for independence, while the government have made important concessions in offering autonomy to the south, and a referendum down the line. For both sides, however, the devil is in the detail. The observers could help to promote compromise on all the issues still outstanding.
	Under the Machakos protocol, the parties are committed to the principle that the unity of Sudan is their priority and that the people of the south can meet their aspirations within that framework. They are also committed to making the unity of the state attractive to the people of the south. The government, or some of them, may believe like Mr Balfour that they can kill home rule by kindness. The SPLA will have control of the south, however, and may be even more dedicated to separation as their lot improves, as the Irish were 100 years ago. The contradiction can be resolved only by the people, with good governance allowing them freedom to debate the matter thoroughly and reach their own conclusions.
	That is going to require greater input from the international community. At some point during the next six years there are to be democratic elections. That is a formidable operation in a country that is over one quarter of the size of the US, but with 4 million people internally displaced out of a population of 30 million. A UN interagency mission considered the additional demands that would arise from resettling those people, as well as returning combatants and the 430,000 refugees from abroad. They made recommendations that will themselves require substantial new resources.
	So far, there seem to be no agreed timetables. One scenario under discussion is that the agreement will be initialled by the end of March and the government of national unity will be formed with the NDA and the SPLM on board by the end of May. In the same period, an equivalent broadly based administration would be set up in the south and there would be a full signature by all those players at the end of June. There would then be a "pre-interim period" of six months for the return of the refugees and the establishment of government structures in Khartoum and Juba, and the interim period itself would begin on 1st January 2004. I do not know that is a realistic time scale, but perhaps the Minister could say whether it is approved by the observers.
	Will the Minister also say something about the role of the IMF and the World Bank in the transition? In November, the IMF reported on the progress made towards resolving Sudan's debt problem. Presumably, if the arrears are dealt with, Sudan will be eligible for new loans. A stable peace would release funds that are currently devoted to military purposes. The draft budget of 2003, which was notified to the IMF, provides for a 13.5 per cent reduction on military spending on last year. Oil revenues must also have increased, with crude now at 30 dollars a barrel, but in all these matters transparency would be an essential element of the agreement to share revenue and natural resources. It would be helpful to know whether the observers can inject that principle into the resumed discussions.
	The parties have agreed that human rights are to be covered in the final peace agreement. It would be a sign of good faith if they invited the UN Special Rapporteur, Gerhart Baum, to help them with the drafting. Sudanese institutions are needed that have the independence, capacity and resources to make a real impact on human rights violations. So far these do not exist. For instance, the body that deals with the abduction of women and children now has a full-time chair and some resources, partly as a result of persuasion by the European Union, which has had a beneficial role, but it still operates as an organisation responsible to the government.
	Khartoum promised to ratify the convention against torture and the convention on elimination of discrimination against women. I hope those commitments will be reiterated in the final peace agreement. Sudan is already a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its report to the human rights committee, which had to be submitted by 7th November last, is now overdue. There are violations of the ICCPR by the special courts in Darfur, which have inflicted lashings on women convicted of adultery after summary trials at which the defendants were not legally represented. That is undoubtedly a breach of Article 14, which provides for fair trials. The harassment and intimidation of journalists continues and newspapers have been arbitrarily closed with no legal process, contrary to Article 19. I hope that we can project into the discussions the need for an authoritative, permanent Sudanese court to which citizens can appeal against violations of human rights treaty obligations that affect them.
	As the international crisis group has said, this is a time for historic decisions, compromises and political courage. It is also a time when the observer circle, IGAD, the AU and all other friends of peace, such as the EU, must use their maximum influence to bring the process to a successful conclusion. As we have heard before, the war has cost 2 million lives over the past three decades and has caused misery to many millions more of Sudan's population. An honourable peace, giving the people of Sudan the hope of democracy and human rights and giving the south the right to self-determination, is within their grasp. We should do our utmost to help them attain it.

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to discuss events in Sudan since your Lordships' House last had the opportunity to do so in October. I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on securing the debate. Once again, the situation in Sudan is critically poised between the dream of real peace and the nightmare of continued war. Talks between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Army stand at a crossroads, but there is increased hope that the signpost points more firmly in the direction of peace than that of war.
	The Machakos protocol was a major breakthrough, which, once implemented, will allow southern Sudan to hold an independence referendum after a six-year power-sharing transition period. It exempts the mainly Christian south from Sharia law. The fragile peace process has since gathered strength, despite some serious setbacks, which included major military offensives launched by both sides around the town of Torit and the suspension of the talks last September. The second session of talks resumed in October and the successful outcome when they closed on 18th November meant that hope was not extinguished.
	In October a ceasefire was agreed that covered the whole country. This first truce was a landmark and another forward step on the road to lasting peace. The subsequent extension of the ceasefire to 31st March this year was a remarkable achievement. Congratulations are due to Kenya's special envoy, Lieutenant General Sumbeiywo, the other envoys and all parties involved in this success. They have shown strong and courageous skills of mediation and diplomacy and deserve our support.
	I understand that the third session of the latest round of talks is due to begin this week, possibly on 15th January. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of this timely debate to confirm when the talks will resume. However, there is still a long way to go. The final protocol on power and wealth sharing that the mediators sought was not signed and difficult issues such as the sharing of oil wealth and the distribution of jobs in the federal civil service have yet to be resolved.
	British Government support is critical to those in the Sudanese Government committed to a peaceful end to the conflict through the continued application of pressure on Khartoum until an agreement is reached. Those threatened by the process need to be reassured about their post-conflict status. Equally important is maintaining pressure on the SPLA to negotiate in good faith and publicly acknowledging the progress and compromises made by either side. The SPLA will also need support and advice. What action are the Government taking to help bring about the transformation of the SPLA into a political party and to promote good governance and economic development in the south?
	In the few minutes I have available, I shall concentrate on human rights, as did the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The Minister said on 7th October last year that the promotion of human rights in Sudan is one of the Government's priorities. I am sure she agrees that slavery is one of the gravest human rights problems facing the people of Sudan. I hope she is as disappointed as I am that the UN resolution on the human rights situation in Sudan, passed at the most recent session of the UN General Assembly, omitted stronger references to slavery and religious persecution. I am pleased that the resolution highlighted the Government of Sudan's continued abrogation of religious freedom, their deliberate attacks against civilians, their support for civilian-abducting militias and repeated denials of humanitarian access to their citizens in need. But a valuable opportunity to bring the despicable practice of slavery to international attention was missed. What is being done to ensure that the issue is addressed in future negotiations? What action is being taken to ensure that the disturbing prospect of a market is not created by the payment for the return of abductees? What progress is being made to ensure that a final peace agreement includes provisions to protect fundamental freedoms and human rights, particularly since the government have extended Sudan's state of emergency for another year.
	With its major oil reserves, Sudan has the opportunity to be one of Africa's great success stories and an economic driver for the region. It is one of the paradoxes of that troubled country that its oil wealth is at present being used to impoverish Sudan's people when it could be enriching them.
	In conclusion, humanitarian relief, human rights and peace are the three critical keys to our Sudan policy. I hope the Minister agrees. We must work on all three simultaneously. Together with the United States and other allies, we must be prepared to ensure that progress is made on the many crucial questions that remain unresolved. The Sudanese conflict has gone on too long. It is time for both sides to resolve their differences within a serious, comprehensive and lasting peace process.

The Lord Bishop of Salisbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for securing this debate. It may be only a few months since we last debated Sudan, but matters are always shifting there and, with our gaze constantly diverted to other parts of the world, it is all too easy to forget the intractable problems and the constant realignments that take place in Sudan. Her Majesty's Government are to be congratulated on the commitment they have shown to the pursuit of peace with justice for all the peoples of Sudan.
	The Secretary of State for International Development has maintained her department's keen interest. The Government of Sudan's Speaker of Parliament has recently publicly criticised our special representative, Alan Goulty, for allegedly travelling around Sudan without permission. That criticism is likely to mean that he is attending effectively to the areas of the negotiations that the parties fear most. I want to encourage as strongly as possible our continuing commitment to standing alongside all the peoples of Sudan in their search for peace, justice and freedom from tyranny or exploitation.
	Withdrawal from engagement with Sudan could cost its people heavily. Isolated, with little concern from outside its borders and without the checks and balances that such interest brings, the forces that threaten Sudan's prospects for peace and good governance could reign supreme and add unimaginably to the death toll that already stands at 2 million.
	One threat to those processes is the activity of militia forces in the region. A recent instance has been an attack on Tam, disclaimed by the Government of Sudan and characterised by them as a "militia raid". That is not so. The commander who led the attack told a press conference that it was his intention to fight the SPLA and defend the oil fields. Such actions amount to a serious breach of the memorandum of understanding, and leave in their wake bloodshed and chaos and the further fragmentation of the civil society. Can the Minister say how Her Majesty's Government are responding to the use of such misinformation?
	Addressing the question of militias is plainly a priority and was treated as such by the Entebbe conference convened by the New Sudan Council of Churches last October. That conference succeeded in bringing together both SPLA field commanders and militia leaders aligned with the Government of Sudan. Its discussions emphasised the need for peace and good governance, for human rights and democratic freedoms, for wealth sharing, restitution and reconstruction. It insisted on the creation of three constitutions for the country during the interim period, one for the central government and one each for the northern and the southern entities. It explicitly ruled out the integration of armies, recognising that a strong and independent army in the south will be a sure guarantee of the peace process. It resolved that there should be a southern leadership consultation to resolve issues such as those. Archbishop Paulino Lokudu, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Juba, and Mulana Abel Alier are to convene that.
	Nurturing a vibrant civil society will be a great challenge and yet a great safeguard for peace. So much will depend on the support we can offer in the formation and training of those engaged in the administration of justice and in teaching and training at college level. I know that that is a challenge with which my colleagues in the Episcopal Church of Sudan and her sister Churches are already engaged. In a small way, the kind of partnership developing between the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches at episcopal level—they now have an annual conference and a period of renewal and study together—provides one small vignette of how trust can be built up between those from the north and the south, and between those of different tribal and racial origins.
	The conference in Entebbe exemplifies the need for partners to guide and direct all the parties in this conflict. In this case it was the Churches who fulfilled that role, as they quite frequently have. And should all our hopes be realised and lasting peace be achieved, the need will continue, and it will grow. The havoc wreaked by deserters after the fall of Torit last autumn is a stark warning of the threat to stability posed by fighters after demobilisation. A whole generation of young Sudanese will have been traumatised by war and will have known nothing else. Recent suicides testify to the deep scars that conflict is leaving. Internally displaced people will have to grapple with the need to reclaim language, culture and identity.
	Speaking in the House on 7th October last year, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, said this:
	"A just peace agreement in Sudan is long overdue. Once a peace agreement has been reached, the international community will be able to contribute as never before to the rehabilitation of Sudan—a goal that we all share."—[Official Report, 7/10/02; col. 106.]
	Yes, we all share that goal, and it will be good to be able to reaffirm that expression of concern directly when I make my next visit to the Sudan in just a few weeks time. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to affirm that resoundingly and tell us some of the ways in which our Government's commitment to the international community's seeking of peace will contribute to the rehabilitation of the Sudan in the future. Those might be very small, but enormously welcome. I hope we shall hear some of that tonight.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for this opportunity. We seem to be closer to peace, and we must all hope that the new memorandum will lead to a genuine settlement. Until recently, few of us believed that that would be possible under the IGAD process. A month ago, I was discussing multi-party democracy in a workshop in the Mozambique parliament, so I am aware of the concerted effort by western donors and some host governments in Africa to link post-conflict aid with good governance and human rights.
	The situation is very different in Sudan, because the political parties have very little power. The Umma and the NDA are not even participants in the peace negotiations. The country is under emergency rule. The government remain unelected in any recognised democratic sense and, although there has been talk of multi-party elections, there is no urgency about that in Khartoum. With larger issues such as control of the oil fields, I wonder whether democracy in the north or south is not simply another current fashion to please the international community.
	The Government of Sudan need a lot more encouragement. They are at least showing flexibility and are apparently open to change on important issues such as the Sharia. But until real political changes come in, there can be no undergirding of human rights law as we understand it in Europe. Gerhart Baum's report, mentioned by the noble Lord, to the General Assembly last October shows how much remains to be done. He believes that national reconciliation can succeed only if human rights become part of the peace process itself. He said:
	"There is no alternative to rule by civil society . . . founded on respect for minorities . . . strengthening tolerance, which is able to build up trust and confidence and a process of reconciliation".
	That is a strong statement in favour of civil society, even by a UN official.
	I declare an interest as a board member of Christian Aid. NGOs—non-governmental organisations—have been fundamental in establishing innovative programmes throughout the period when Sudan was diplomatically isolated, laying foundations in peace-building and human rights that have only recently been taken up by governments. I will not now go into the peace process in the south mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, but the New Sudan Council of Churches has been one of the most persistent players there, and Christian Aid is involved in rebuilding civil society and the judiciary.
	Save the Children has an equally long record in education and child protection. In Khartoum, it belongs to the rather feeble committee set up to eradicate abduction that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. The committee is a key test of the government's commitment to human rights, and it is a good example of the gap between diplomacy and actual achievement.
	I was in Khartoum at the time when women's organisations received an unexpected boost from the decree by the Wali of Khartoum forbidding women to work in cafes, garages and other public places. The decree was soon reversed, and the Wali later replaced, but the issue of human rights had been usefully highlighted. Another order at that time forbade southern women from brewing and selling traditional liquor, for which they were regularly flung into Omdurman jail until the NGOs could campaign for their release.
	Many effective human rights initiatives operate on a very small scale or are highly localised. Contrary to belief, they often emphasise education and training in the existing law rather than activism or campaigning to change it. I will give just one example of a women's programme that has had a lot of impact, supported by Christian Aid and now our own Foreign Office through its human rights fund. It is a legal awareness programme run by a group known as Mutawinat, which means "women co-operating".
	Mutawinat is well known in Khartoum, but it now plans to reach more isolated groups through workshops in regional centres such as Kassala, Kosti and El Obeid. Its objective is to empower women to use the law. The workshops are a means of passing on basic legal information to communities that have lacked such information in the past. The focus is on vulnerable groups such as women and children in conflict situations, prisoners, the displaced, refugees and women in low-paid casual work. The target groups include trade unionists, community leaders, NGOs and community organisations. That is exactly the kind programme that Sudan needs and to which Gerhart Baum referred.
	With the new peace agreement—assuming that it brings with it a stronger legal framework and the possibility of democratic rule—will come a new atmosphere of openness and a greater involvement of civil society in national and local government. That may be a lot to hope for, but Sudan needs justice more than it needs aid. Large numbers of Sudanese, especially women who have lost family members during the war, have had enough of fighting.
	According to one report, some women in the Upper Nile feel so strongly about peace that they are even prepared to withdraw favours from their husbands, like the heroines of the Lysistrata. Whether under Islam or Christianity, that may be a daring form of liberation, but those women must not be underestimated. There is a strong tradition in today's world—it is growing—of the effectiveness of women's movements. It is quite likely that the women in Sudan, as elsewhere, will have a decisive influence in their own future.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on enabling us to discuss this very important subject and giving such a comprehensive overview. However, I regret that my concerns are legion. The first is the NIF's continuing violation of the Machakos protocol. On 9th January, Professor Eric Reeves reported numerous violations of the memorandum of understanding concerning the cessation of offensive military actions. I draw extensively from his assessment.
	A flow of barges down the White Nile has brought a huge augmentation of military equipment and manpower to Juba, clearly threatening Kapoeta in Eastern Equatoria, and Yei in Western Equatoria. Very large offensive deployments have moved to Wau in Bahr-El-Ghazal and to Kassala in the east. In recent days, fighting has broken out in the oil regions of Western Upper Nile, along the oil road south of Bentiu and the new oil development in Concession Block 4. Estimates suggest thousands of people newly displaced by this fighting.
	Some have held that "engagement" at Machakos was always seen as an expedient measure by Khartoum, and that self-determination would later be abandoned; others, however, have believed that though painful compromises on both sides would be needed, the singular nature of the opportunity at Machakos would allow a just peace to emerge.
	However, the build-up near Juba clearly has offensive military implications, requiring a reassessment. The open violation of the agreement, which has elicited no significant international response, must influence Khartoum's assessment of what Machakos represents. Every day without a forceful response to its egregious violations signals to Khartoum that this agreement, like countless others, can be violated with impunity. No more dangerous signal could be sent. Despite the abundance of optimism in the international community and in your Lordships' House, the mood in the south is grim. There is a deep and passionate hope for peace, but grave and increasingly justified scepticism.
	Secondly, the NIF has become increasingly repressive to the people in northern Sudan, with continuing reports of violations of human rights in the north. Machakos has yet to make any guarantee of human rights.
	My third concern relates to the international dimension of the NIF's commitment to extend its policy of Islamisation beyond Sudan. In Nigeria last week, I visited areas afflicted by violent conflicts associated with the implementation of Sharia law, including Kano, Kaduna, Bauchi and Jos. Sudan's involvement from the start is indicated by its participation in the ceremony to celebrate the introduction of Sharia in Samfara State—the first to be affected. Subsequently, 11 states have accepted Sharia and there have been widespread killings, destruction of property and the destabilisation of communities. Diverse sources informed us that these developments are part of a policy to achieve the Islamisation of the whole of Nigeria, with far-reaching implications for West Africa.
	Many leaders of Nigeria's militant Islamist groups were, and still are, being trained in Sudan; and many Nigerians are reportedly receiving training in Abusa, near Khartoum and in a military training camp in Darfur. These developments follow from the Sudanese Islamist leader El-Turabi's "comprehensive negotiations" in early 1992 with leaders of Nigeria's Islamic movement—which is committed to transforming Nigeria into an Islamic nation, either through peaceful means or by an Islamic revolution. Moreover, I understand that Mohammed Ali Al-Haj is:
	"The Chairman of the Bureau of Federal Rule",
	and that it is he who is in charge of the peace process in southern Sudan; he is also in charge of supporting the furthering of the Islamic revolution in Africa, with Nigeria as a priority target. As of 3rd January, he is still ranked number four in the official hierarchy of the NIF regime.
	I therefore ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the agendas of the kinds of people with whom they are having "peace talks" and whether they are taking into account the far-reaching implications of Sudan's policies beyond Sudan for other parts of Africa. Certainly the majority of Nigerians do not want Nigeria to become an Islamic state, but Sudan's involvement currently is helping to destabilise the nation dangerously.
	Moreover, the NIF continues to be involved with international terrorism. Some prominent NIF leaders are known Al'Qaeda supporters; and those involved with the terrorist attacks in Mombasa may have been allowed to take refuge in Somalia and Sudan. If the NIF is so closely involved with spreading militant Islam in West Africa and with terrorist atrocities in East Africa and if some of its most prominent leaders are closely linked with Al'Qaeda, is it really in the interests of the people of Sudan for the British Government to be supporting a peace that appears to be peace at any price, including widespread and continuing violations of human rights—especially in the north—and the continuing bloodshed of its people in many parts of Sudan?
	I therefore ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government will: put pressure on the NIF to desist from its build-up of military offensives; indicate what measures they propose to take if the regime continues to violate the Machakos protocol; and urge all concerned to ensure that human rights are included in Machakos discussions as a matter of urgency. I also ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware of the NIF's involvement with the implementation of Sharia law in Nigeria, with resulting conflicts responsible for widespread death and destruction in Kano, Kaduna, Bauchi and Plateau states. Are investigations under way into the association of Somalia and Sudan with the perpetrators of the recent terrorist atrocities in Mombasa? If so, what do Her Majesty's Government see as the implications for trusting the NIF regime's sincerity of commitment to a genuine peace?

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the speeches already made vindicate the decision of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to return us to this subject of the Sudan.
	When the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to the recapture of Torit by the forces of the Government of Sudan, it reminded me of my experience there, to which I referred in our previous debate on this subject in October. I had been in the diocese of Torit in September and I saw at first hand some of the depredations that had occurred in the course of this terrible conflict.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, some 2 million people have lost their lives in the past 19 years, and between 4 million and 5 million people have been displaced. I saw in the diocese of Torit churches that had been desecrated, forced Islamicisation, the bombing of schools and clinics, and children who, whenever they heard a plane approaching overhead, would dive for the foxholes that had been provided by British aid agencies in fear that there would be another bombing raid. They have even learnt to recognise the difference between the Russian-made bombers used by the Sudanese Government and the aid planes used by the United Nations.
	The hatreds clearly run deep and bringing about any kind of reconciliation and dialogue will be an enormously difficult and painstaking task. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and my noble friend Lord Sandwich were right to remind us, as did the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, of the importance of building a civil society, though it will be a painstaking approach, and the importance of helping organisations like the SPLA and using the voluntary organisations, the women's movements and others to help create the kind of civil society which will give Sudan the chance of a lasting peace.
	I travelled to Sudan with the Jubilee campaign, which I helped to found in Parliament 15 years ago. Jubilee is one of the human rights groups that believes that genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes have been committed by the Government of Sudan over those years. In our last debate I remarked on the widespread suffering caused by horrific aerial bombardment and the extraordinary courage and fortitude of the people I met there.
	In October there was just a flicker of hope that the Machakos talks, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred, might at last lead to a ceasefire without which no political progress can be made. Of course I am glad, as is everyone else in your Lordships' House, that that tentative progress has been made. Movements like the SPLA, which, in the course of 19 years has seen the dispossession of so many of its people, will not be hounded into submission. Nor will they find it easy to reach agreement with the Government of Sudan if the violence continues while they sit at the conference table. As we are well aware from our experience in Northern Ireland, little progress is possible while bombing and killing persists on a systematic and daily basis.
	Nor should we make the mistake of believing that a ceasefire is itself the final objective. A ceasefire is not a substitute for either democracy or justice; and we should also be aware that a ceasefire may be used as a smokescreen. Since September some progress has been made at a political level, but that has been impeded by the continuing violence. The breach of the ceasefire by the Government of Sudan by its attack on Tam in Western Upper Nile is but one example. The Government of Sudan should not be allowed to get away by claiming that it was independent militia who were responsible. That attack also raises questions about the need for more effective monitoring.
	Generally I have been admiring of the role played by the United States Administration in Sudan. However, the US-led monitoring team's report on the September 2002 bombing was disappointing in its lateness as well as in its content.
	It also needs to be understood that the ceasefire benefits the Government of Sudan militarily and that they have been using the ceasefire to make military preparations to resume war if the peace process does not go as they wish. I am sorry that Her Majesty's Government, in reply to parliamentary Questions that I tabled last year, were unable to counter the many fears in southern Sudan that the sale of the Alenia Marconi radar systems to the Government of Sudan will contribute to the accretion of great military strength. That may be an issue to which the Minister could respond in her reply.
	Our failure to turn off the tap of western oil receipts means that we are directly contributing to that process. As the Reverend Akio Johnson, Bishop of Torit with whom I travelled when I went into that part of southern Sudan, put it to me, "Every barrel of oil bought by the west is half full of oil and half full of the blood of our people. You should remember that when you pull your car into garage forecourts".
	Sudan's modern history is littered with temporary peace agreements which were eventually broken. To ensure a permanent peace within Sudan it is essential that the gross human rights violations and blatant injustices such as the slavery referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others, the forced conversion to Islam referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the slaughter of civilians be stopped once and for all. It is also absolutely crucial for the Government of Sudan to practise religious moderation and tolerance since a sizeable proportion of its population—around 35 per cent—are not Muslims. Religion is a major fault line in Sudan.
	In conclusion, if the parties to the conflict fail to reach a peace agreement and the Machakos talks fail, the British Government should then use their permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council to lobby for a universal embargo on arms and investment to be imposed on Sudan. Investment in Sudan's oil fields and the Government of Sudan's oil revenues are fuelling the conflict. Those investments enable the Sudanese Government's military to purchase ever more lethal weapons of destruction such as helicopter gunships. The UN embargo on arms and investment would therefore go a long way toward de-escalating the civil war described by some as the "deadliest phase" in the history of this conflict in Sudan.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for this opportunity to speak on the Sudan peace talks. All noble Lords who have spoken are tireless observers of events in that country. That ensures that Sudan, so often overlooked in the headlines, is never forgotten in this House.
	I am sorry that the noble Lord has received no support from his own Benches. We on these Benches take the problems of Sudan seriously. Indeed, my right honourable friend Michael Ancram and my honourable friend Caroline Spelman will be visiting Sudan in early March.
	Peace talks are due to resume in Kenya in two days' time. I agree with my noble friend Lord Moynihan that those in Kenya who have worked so hard to broker the talks deserve great credit. The participants will be confronted with serious political decisions. However, the Sudanese Government have cast doubt on whether they will appear. At first, they said that they had not received their invitation; then they objected to the fact that the future of Abyei, Nuba and Blue Nile, in central Sudan, was to be given prominence during this round of talks.
	The Sudanese Government have a history of going from one peace negotiation to another, jumping ship whenever a real peace agreement is imminent. Today they appear to be reactivating the Nigerian peace initiative, just as the Machakos protocol is reaching the point of significant breakthrough. That must not be allowed to happen. International pressure, which drove that government to the negotiating table, should be maintained to ensure a true breakthrough in negotiations.
	The fact that the talks are resuming at all is a relief, although in the past such resumption has not led to the cessation of military operations. Last September the Sudanese Government walked out of the negotiations after the SPLA recaptured Torit. Humanitarian aid flights to the south of the country were cancelled at the same time. As my noble friend Lady Cox pointed out, there are reports of an ongoing military campaign in the oilfields and a military build-up in Juba, in defiance of the Machakos cease-fire agreements. That is unacceptable; it is important that Her Majesty's Government condemn such actions in the strongest terms.
	A genuine cease-fire must be established before the mechanics of secession can be worked out fully. The war in Sudan is highly complex and a good deal of the fighting is factional. Technical military advice will need to be employed to ensure that a cease-fire is workable on the ground as well as in the political arena. This must be addressed as a matter of urgency before the south can even consider setting up autonomous institutions of its own.
	The peace plan, which we hope will form the basis of good governance in Sudan, is vital. Restructuring will be a great task. I ask the Minister how far preparations have come and what assistance Her Majesty's Government have offered to make the talks successful.
	Many of the issues to be discussed over the coming months concern power-sharing and wealth-sharing. An internationally monitored mechanism for wealth-sharing will need to be implemented to ensure that all relevant stakeholders benefit from the peace agreement. A technical committee will be required, for example, on the issue of a census for southern Sudan. If the south is one day to become independent of the north, at some point government forces will be required to withdraw. I am interested to know whether IGAD has made arrangements for disarmament. If, as we hope, talks progress satisfactorily over the coming months, the long haul to reconstruct the country must get under way as quickly as possible.
	Finally, I ask the Minister whether the Government have received any reports on the continuation of the slave trade, and particularly, of any follow-up of the recommendations of the Eminent Persons Group that investigated the issue of slavery in Sudan, and whether the international community is any nearer to establishing a permanent mechanism to monitor the Sudanese warring parties as they attempt to address slavery, abduction and forced servitude.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for initiating this timely debate, which demonstrates the continued interest in Sudan in this House.
	Last year saw a new opportunity for peace in Sudan. War-weariness and international pressure finally brought the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement back to the negotiating table in June 2002. The peace talks held under the auspices of the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development—IGAD—at Machakos in Kenya have been revitalised under the leadership of Kenya's Special Envoy, Lt-General Sumbeiywo. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, rightly paid tribute to his work and to Kenya's role.
	The Machakos protocol, signed at the end of the first session on 20th July, represented a significant breakthrough on key issues—state and religion, and self-determination for southern Sudan—within a framework of national unity.
	A second session of talks, ending on 18th November last year, produced a Memorandum of Understanding on a cessation of hostilities until the end of March 2003, and agreement on aspects of power and wealth-sharing, as well as human rights.
	The talks are due to resume later this week to discuss the marginalised areas of Southern Blue Nile, the Nuba Mountains and Abyei. These discussions will take place outside the auspices of IGAD although they will involve many of the same participants. We expect the IGAD talks to resume in the near future. These will consider outstanding aspects of power and wealth-sharing, cease-fire and security issues and guarantees of an agreement.
	The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, asked about the United Kingdom Government's contribution to the talks. To maintain the impetus for peace in the adjournment period, we organised successful workshops on cease-fire and security issues with the US and Norway in both north and south Sudan in December. The US Government hosted workshops on aspects of power and wealth-sharing in Washington which we also attended. This will of course impact on militias, a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury and by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. There may be a requirement to strengthen policing after peace has been agreed.
	So we are playing a full part in the peace efforts and we will continue to offer the parties and mediators our full support and advice and remain actively involved in helping them reach a comprehensive peace agreement.
	A number of noble Lords raised the issue of human rights, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. We continue to be concerned about the human rights of all in Sudan regardless of their ethnic or religious background. The promotion of human rights remains one of our priorities. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, raised specifically the issue of slavery and abduction. The abduction of women and children is a serious and distressing issue to which we pay particular attention. We continue to work closely with the Committee for the Eradication of Abduction of Women and Children, which is working with UNICEF and Save the Children UK.
	The Government of Sudan have made clear publicly that they are committed to the success of the committee and have said that they see abduction as totally unacceptable and contrary to both Islam and Christianity. We share the concerns of many working on this issue about the paying for the return of abductees in that it could actually encourage abduction by developing a market. It rewards the abductors financially. The civilian protection team will investigate reports of abduction.
	We regularly lobby the Government of Sudan, for example to ratify the convention—

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. From her experience, is she satisfied with the progress of the committee to which she has referred?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are concerned that sometimes movement on the committee appears to be slow. But we feel that its work is very important indeed and that there is a commitment by the committee to take forward these issues. That is why we continue to work with it very closely. But I can understand that behind the noble Earl's question lies a degree of frustration about the length of time it sometimes takes to get these issues considered and taken through quickly.
	To continue with human rights. We continue to lobby the Government of Sudan, for example, to ratify the convention against torture. We actively criticise the government on human rights issues bilaterally and through the EU/Sudan dialogue. The dialogue assesses progress against benchmarks on democracy, the rule of law, freedom of religion, human rights and the peace process. The dialogue is reviewed on an annual basis—most recently, by an EU troika mission to Khartoum on 9th and 10 December last year.
	The EU also sponsored a resolution at this year's UN Commission on Human Rights, and at the UN General Assembly we set out our concerns and criticised both the Government of Sudan and the SPLM/A.
	The long-term answer to improving the human rights situation in Sudan is an IGAD peace settlement. The noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Astor, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked about the attack that happened during the interim period. It is a great encouragement that by and large the cessation of hostilities is being respected. Recently, we received unconfirmed reports of tribal conflict in Darfur and fighting in the western Upper Nile. We will shortly be sending representatives to investigate the situation in Darfur.
	The US had approached Lt-General Sumbeiywo to activate the investigations committee. The civilian protection monitoring team's aircraft could be made available to the Government of Sudan and the SPLM if needed. In any case, the civilian protection monitoring team is investigating allegations of attacks against civilians during the recent fighting in western Upper Nile.
	The peace process offers the best chance of bringing an end to the civil war through a negotiated settlement between the Government of Sudan and the SPLM/A. But, as was said by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, there is an important role for civil society and it is desirable that other voices are heard. The noble Earl spoke particularly about the importance of women in the process. They have an important role to play in Sudan's future and attend the peace negotiations.
	The right reverend Prelate focused on the important role of the Churches. They too have a key role to play. We funded a civil society conference on the Nuba mountains and southern Blue Nile in Kampala in November through Justice Africa. We will continue to support peace activities through civil society groups—an important part of the wider peace process—through our embassy peacebuilding fund.
	Questions were raised about international community support for Sudan—particularly by the right reverend Prelate. The war in Sudan has prevented many donors, including the UK, from carrying out a development programme over the past decade. More than 500 million dollars of development funding will become available from the international community when there is peace. That is a huge incentive for the warring parties to reach a comprehensive agreement. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that we are working to engage the IFIs—which share our desire to see peace in Sudan.
	The noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked particularly about the UK contribution. If there is a peace, UK funding for Sudan in 2003-04 is likely to be around £20 million—double our programme this financial year. We are planning an immediate peace dividend in the education sector when there is comprehensive agreement. We will also consider how we can best support transitional needs—such as the return of internally displaced persons and refugees, demobilisation of the armed forces and landmine clearance.
	Until there is a peace agreement, we will continue to support life-saving humanitarian work and peacebuilding activities—such as personnel to monitor the ceasefire in the Nuba mountains and support for anti-slavery work and the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development secretariat.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about timing. We are aiming at a comprehensive agreement in the first half of this year. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, specifically asked about Alenia Marconi. Sudan has a requirement for a modern air traffic control system, not least because the vast majority of humanitarian assistance is transported by air. All export licence applications are considered against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. The United Kingdom continues to observe these criteria as well as implement vigorously the EU arms embargo against Sudan.
	The noble Lord also asked about oil revenues. We have pressed for revenues to be used for development projects and for transparency in the oil account. The Government of Sudan have made public assurances to that effect. We shall look to them to honour those assurances and shall remain focused on this issue as evidence becomes available.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked whether we are looking at the situation in Sudan in the context of our wider policy in Africa. The short answer is yes. We cannot look at development policy through the Department for International Development or, indeed, our diplomacy through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, without taking an integrated and comprehensive approach. We have an overall strategy and we are well aware of the need to look at all countries in Africa in their global context which includes the issue of failed and failing states and the war against terrorism.
	There is still much to be done but the prospects for peace which will bring an end to the suffering of the people of Sudan are good.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.34 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.32 to 8.34 p.m.]

Licensing Bill [HL]

House again in Committee on Clause 17.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 168:
	Page 11, line 5, at end insert—
	"( ) what provision the applicant proposes to take with regard to children on the premises, and"

Baroness Buscombe: Amendment No. 168 returns to the question of the access of children to licensed premises. We debated this issue in our last outing in Committee. I stressed then and I stress again that we feel there are many potential problems regarding the unrestricted access of children to licensed premises as outlined in the Bill. I was not entirely satisfied with the assurances I received that the Bill would adequately protect children from harm.
	Amendment No. 168 proposes that the operating schedule, which is to accompany every application, must outline what proposals the applicant intends to make with regard to children on its premises. While that may be covered by subsection (4)(g), which refers to,
	"the steps which it is proposed to take to promote the licensing objectives",
	I do not believe that that is explicit enough. It is important that licensed premises make clear their attitude regarding the access of children. Such clarification will reassure parents, local authorities and the publicans themselves.
	I add that I conducted a straw poll during the Christmas Recess. I understand that as the law currently applies there are situations whereby children have access to premises. I found that the opinion of most people I spoke to from all walks of life and all ages is that unrestricted access of unaccompanied children is extraordinary and surprising and is a matter which should be addressed expressly in the operating schedule. I beg to move.

Lord Monson: I believe that this is a worthwhile amendment, although possibly not for the same reasons advanced by the noble Baroness. Most pubs nowadays are family friendly. That is a good thing and as it should be. But a significant minority of pubs are very much for adults only. There is surely room for both types.
	About eight months ago my wife and I visited Chester for the first time. We walked along the length of the famous city walls on two or three occasions and were amused to see a pub with an enormous bold-type sign stating, "Children not welcome". There was an additional adjacent sign stating something like, "No fancy foreign food here. British bangers only". That suggested it was not precisely my cup of tea or my pint of real ale, one might say, but there was definitely a fairly boisterous clientele in the city that weekend for whom it was ideally suited. I think there should be room for both types of pub. I hope that it is not the Government's intention to force all pubs to cater for children because I think that that would not be good for children or for the general community.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I recognise that this amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is driven by the best of intentions. I also appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, about the necessity of our recognising that hostelries need to cater for those who are not so fond of children when drinking at the bar. It is quite clear that we need a range of pubs.
	It will be for licensees to apply for whichever licence guarantees that they follow one of those objectives. There will be a number of pubs, despite the greatly welcomed move referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, of the growing family friendliness of pubs, which will take pride in the fact that they restrict themselves to adults, because that is how they cater best for the people who patronise them.
	This is an important amendment. The Committee will want to be satisfied that arrangements for children on licensed premises are appropriate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, indicated, we have already debated this issue at some length.
	Members of the Committee will know that the licensing objectives include the protection of children from harm. The applicant is therefore required to set out what steps he proposes to take in order to fulfil this objective when carrying on licensable activities on the premises. This might, of course, involve exclusion from certain areas. There could be concerns about physical safety or risk of moral or psychological harm. In some places, the issue of anxiety about children may not obtain at all. A small, quiet restaurant may say nothing in its submission for a licence, because it would be entirely appropriate for children and would not give rise to any anxieties. The proposal will be scrutinised by the police, other responsible authorities and interested parties, including local residents, to guarantee that objectives are met.
	The problem with this amendment is that it indicates the possibility of a quite broad provision for children. There was some suggestion there might be a play area or a creche or other facilities. We know that one of the reasons why so few licensed premises applied for child and family-friendly certificates after the 1994 Act was because of the substantial costs involved. Now we have the opportunity to put that right—not by obliging the industry to engage in additional costs, but by guaranteeing the protection from harm of our children, which is why the clause is phrased as it is. I hope that noble Lords will recognise the deep commitment on all sides of the Committee, and an obligation on the Government, to ensure that children are protected from harm in any licensed premises. However, we do not wish to put artificial barriers in the way of the development of family-friendly institutions.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his reply. The last thing I intended was to put artificial barriers in the way of a family-friendly policy. I am all for family-friendly premises where accompanied children are welcome. I asked someone what happens in Eire and was told that it is perfectly normal to walk into a pub at 10 o'clock at night and see people strumming guitars, with children, dogs, and adults, all together. That is precisely what we would love to see in bars and pubs in this country.
	On a personal level, I, and many people to whom I have spoken, have a problem with unaccompanied children. I cannot think how that promotes a family-friendly pub culture. I am sorry that the Minister is disinclined to respond to our proposal. I will read his comments in Hansard because I feel passionately that there is a need to protect children.
	I remember a police officer saying at a meeting before Second Reading that alcohol equals crime and disorder. We all care about future generations. I am not convinced that this radical approach to children in licensed premises is a good idea. Publicans should be able to specify what their intentions are in relation to children. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 169 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendments Nos. 170 to 172 not moved.]
	Clause 17 agreed to.
	Clause 18 [Determination of application for premises licence]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 173:
	Page 11, line 25, at end insert—
	"( ) The licensing authority is under a duty to act promptly in the determination of applications under this section."

Baroness Buscombe: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 202 and 245. Amendment No. 173 would lay down in the Bill the obligation on the licensing authority to act promptly in determining applications for premises licences. Amendments Nos. 202 and 245 are more stringent. They would impose a maximum time limit within which the licensing authorities must respond to applications for premises licences or variations of premises licences.
	I tabled the amendments to probe an issue. Nowhere in the Bill is there mention of a time limit on processing of applications. I suggest 30 days as a time limit merely to provoke debate, but there is a real need to set a limit. Many in the industry have experienced severe delays in processing of public entertainment licences by local authorities. Delays cost money. A small business may be seriously affected by a wait of, say, six months, before its application is determined—especially if it is ultimately rejected.
	Some may think that the provision of Amendment No. 173, which imposes,
	"a duty to act promptly",
	goes without saying. In an ideal world, it would be unnecessary to table the amendments, but we are not in ideal world and the industry needs some reassurance that its applications will be processed within a fixed period. As I said, I do not want to put licensing authorities under undue pressure. Other Members of the Committee may have a clearer sense of what is a realistic maximum time limit to impose, but, in principle, some limit should he imposed.
	The Government have frequently assured us all that local authorities will be able to cope with the burden of taking on the role of licensing authority, and that resources and costs will be adequately met by the licensing fees. If so—do not imagine for one moment that I doubt the capability of local authorities to fulfil their role—the imposition of a sensible time limit will not be too much of a hardship. I beg to move.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I have tabled an amendment in this group. I entirely support what my noble friend said about the need to act promptly. There is concern in the industry that local authorities have not always covered themselves with glory in the past in their promptness of response to applications for public entertainment licences. There is concern that as the burden of work rises—as will inevitably be the case with the transfer of responsibilities—that situation will worsen rather than improve.
	I entirely support my noble friend's amendment. My amendment, Amendment No. 178, is designed to ensure that authorities get a move on with hearings about representations. I understand that representations can and should be made and must be listened to, but applicants for a premises licence are entitled to a prompt hearing to consider those representations. My amendment would require the local authority or licensing authority to hold a hearing within 14 days after the conclusion of the time for representations to be made.
	I do not suggest that 14 days is necessarily the right length of time, but, like my noble friend, I believe that there should be some fixed period; it is a matter for debate what is the right one.

Lord Redesdale: I support the amendments. One of the issues that has caused most concern among publicans to whom I have spoken about the move from magistrates to local authorities is their previous experience of local authorities taking a great deal longer to come to a decision about outstanding grievances than is good for business. Although difficult in some respects, a set period within which hearings should be held would give a degree of financial security to the institution. I therefore hope that the Minister can tell us why a time limit has not been set in the Bill.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is absolutely nothing between us on this, except the issue of whether the provision should be in primary or secondary legislation. We agree that there should be appropriate and fair time limits, although whether they should be of 30 days, 14 days or whatever the proposers say is a matter for further consultation with interested parties. It is accepted that there should be time limits. I give an undertaking that appropriate and fair time limits will be included in secondary legislation. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has agreed implicitly that it is right for those details to be in secondary legislation.
	There has been huge difficulty during the past 40 years in obtaining changes to licensing regulation because it was in primary legislation and it was difficult to find parliamentary time to change it. We wholeheartedly support the principle behind the amendments.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I am delighted by his assurances and his agreement that this is an important issue. We accept and are reassured by his undertaking that this matter will be dealt with by regulation. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 174:
	Page 11, line 25, at end insert—
	"( ) Where an application for a premises licence is received by a licensing authority but—
	(a) it is not made in accordance with section 17, or
	(b) the authority is not satisfied under subsection (1)(b),
	the authority shall return the application to the applicant indicating its reasons for doing so."

Baroness Buscombe: As it stands, Clause 18 provides for what the council has to do if an application is made which complies with all the rules and regulations about the form of the application. It makes no provision for what the licensing authority should do if there is a failure to comply. Clause 18 provides that in such cases the licensing authority must return the application to the applicant. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I agree entirely with the provision of Amendment No. 174. Clauses 17 and 18 set out the basis on which licensing authorities determine any application. Local authorities must conduct themselves in accordance with their own governing rules. It is implicit that in the type of circumstances that this amendment seeks to address, licensing authorities would have returned their applications, giving their reasons for doing so. It is an area that will be covered in the guidance to be issued with the Bill which we shall have an opportunity to debate on Report.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his full response and his reassurance that this matter will be covered in the guidance. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount Falkland: moved Amendment No. 175:
	Page 11, leave out lines 26 and 27 and insert—
	"( ) In determining any such application the authority shall have regard to its licensing statement and to any other material considerations, and in granting a licence may impose—"

Viscount Falkland: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 176, 177, 180 and 307. As presently drafted, Clause 18(2) would require the licensing authority to grant licences in accordance with the operating plan of the applicant in the absence of "relevant representations" from an interested party or a responsible person irrespective of whether it believed that granting the licence would promote the licensing objectives or whether it would interfere with the rights of individuals in its area. That is unreasonable.
	The licensing authority has duties, first, to promote the licensing objectives and, secondly, to refrain from taking decisions that contravene the European Convention on Human Rights under Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 to have regard to its own licensing statement, prepared after consultation, and to do everything in its powers to reduce crime and disorder in its area in accordance with Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act. It cannot possibly discharge those duties without the powers to do so. This amendment ensures that it has the powers to discharge those duties.
	The fact that no relevant representations have been made is surely not always a decisive indicator of the absence of any problems. The licensing authority may know of reasons why relevant representations have not been made—for example, harassment, sheer volume of applications with which the police and the interested parties have to deal.
	In the normal course of their business, licensing authorities gain knowledge of all these issues from a much wider range of sources than relevant representations. Councillors receive letters—sometimes signed, sometimes not—and the council receives complaints. There are site visits, newspaper articles, research publications and reports, petitions and telephone calls, all of which can put the council on notice that a problem may exist.
	In such circumstances, surely it would be entirely inappropriate for the council simply to grant the application. Doing so may require the licensing authority to act in violation of its obligations of the Human Rights Act 1998. It would be far better to recognise that licensing authorities should be given powers to promote the licensing objectives at all times and to act in accordance with their obligations under the Human Rights Act.
	The effect of all these amendments would be to confer on licensing authorities slightly wider powers than those set out in the Bill. In particular, they would allow them to take whatever action they deemed fit to promote the licensing objectives which are at the core of the legislation, and to ensure compliance with their obligations under the convention. I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I support my noble friend's remarks in relation to this group of amendments. Like him, I believe that this is a core provision. Without these or similar changes, the Bill will be wholly inadequate.
	It is no exaggeration to say that unless we have such amendments, which entitle the licensing authorities to form their own views as to the merit or otherwise of licensing applications—in effect to give them discretion—there will be an automatic procedure, as provided for by Clause 18, in which the local authorities are in effect ciphers of central government. One needs to remind the Government that under Clause 4 licensing authorities must have regard to the guidance issued from Whitehall. The framework for guidance already makes it perfectly clear that it will encourage longer drinking hours and encourage a semi-automatic approach to dealing with applications for licences.
	Clause 18 as drafted is one of the most complicated provisions to find one's way around that I have encountered in the five years that I have been in this House. That is regrettable. I am not casting aspersions on the draftsman or draftswoman. No doubt, complying with their instructions as they were given them led to this particular combination of subsections. But frankly, for the police, magistrates, local authorities, brewers and publicans to find their way around Clause 18 and the provisions that spin off it will be a daunting task.
	Anyone reading Clause 18(1) might think that all is okay. It says:
	"This section applies where the relevant licensing authority . . . receives an application for a premises licence".
	Then come the comforting words:
	"made in accordance with section 17".
	People may think, "That's good. It has to be in accordance with Section 17". But when you look at Clause 17, you see that it is not a qualitative clause at all; it contains a whole series of formal requirements—time limits and what has to be included in the operating schedule. One might turn to Clause 18(1)(b), which says that the licensing authority must be,
	"satisfied that the applicant has complied with any requirement imposed on him under subsection (5) of",
	Clause 17. Anyone inclined to take solace from that would be severely misled, because subsection (5) deals with regulations as to timing advertisements and the like.
	Clause 18(2) tells us that the licensing authority,
	"must grant the licence in accordance with the application"—
	those are very pregnant words—
	"subject only to . . . such conditions as are consistent with the operating schedule".
	Again, the uninitiated might think that this was a solace. They might think, "Oh, well that's all right, it has to be in accordance with the schedule." Then they discover that the operating schedule is the schedule drawn up by the person seeking the licence—so that is no good.
	Clause 17(4)(g) looks as if it might give some support for what might be called the wider public interest, such as the interest of residents. It says that the operating schedule must deal with,
	"the steps which it is proposed to take to promote the licensing objectives".
	But there is nothing there about whether the steps proposed by the applicant are adequate steps or will deal satisfactorily with the licensing objectives—nothing of the sort. Even if that part of the operating schedule was woefully inadequate and provided steps towards the four licensing objectives that were on any reasonable assessment hopelessly inadequate, the licensing authority has no discretion to do anything about it. That will be the case however worried, concerned or distressed the local councillors are and however much they know that it will cause mayhem in their district. They can do nothing.
	As my noble friend Lord Falkland said, only a relevant representative can make an objection of a qualitative nature to which the licensing authority must have regard. There again, however, one is trapped in the extreme complexity of the language of the clause. "Relevant representations", as defined by Clause 18(6), are extremely narrowly drafted. If local citizens banded together, they would be interested parties under the Bill. They might say that having the local pub open between midnight and five in the morning would have a severely disruptive effect on the amenity of the village. They might not be referring to people being drunk and disorderly or violent, but simply to the constant to-ing and fro-ing to a pub at all hours throughout the morning. That would not qualify as a relevant representation, however, which is surely utterly bizarre. Subsection (6) defines a relevant representation as one confined to,
	"the likely effect of the grant of the premises licence on the promotion of the licensing objectives".
	We all know, because we debated it earlier, that Clause 4 defines the licensing objectives in a wholly inadequate way. The only one that comes anywhere near amenity of local residents is the public nuisance test. I shall not repeat the arguments, which were made on all sides of the Committee, that to have public nuisance as the only amenity test gets nowhere near the issues that will concern decent, ordinary folk. It is not even dealing with private nuisance. We are concerned about severe breach of amenity without any nuisance at all.
	It is an Alice in Wonderland set of provisions. First, they deprive the licensing authority of any qualitative judgment or discretion as to the satisfactory nature or otherwise of the operating schedule put forward by the applicant for a licence. The proposals deprive the authority of the ability to do the very thing that the Government have led us to believe they are there to do. We have had a lot of talk about how much more democratic and improving it will be to have local councillors rather than magistrates as the licensing authority, because they are nearer to mother Earth and much more answerable and accountable to local citizens, who are their electors. However, they have no discretion or judgments that they can make and, what is more, local residents have no powers even to make a representation that is not confined to "licensing objectives".
	As if that is not enough, Clause 18 goes on to rub the point in. The authority cannot have regard to any other matters unless they are,
	"necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives".
	That phrase is used twice.
	Unless Clauses 4 and 18 are fundamentally amended, the Bill will prove seriously inadequate. It will not give the public the protection that they deserve and it will not strike the balance that the Government repeatedly say is their dearest wish.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My amendments later on deal with Clause 18 to a certain extent. Several of the points have been raised already, and I shall deal with them on this amendment. In particular, subsection (2) says specifically that the licence must be granted and the reasons for not doing so are few and far between. As with planning applications, the weight is in favour of the applicant. It is not evenly balanced.
	There is a strict time limit on when representations may be made. There are all sorts of reasons. People might be in hospital or abroad and not know about things. I compare the situation to an employment tribunal, for which there is a strict time limit. Applications must be in by a certain date. However, it is possible to apply for an out of date hearing or consideration of your point of view, as it would be in this case, if you can prove that there is a good reason why you did not bring in your reason earlier. Perhaps you never received the letter. I do not know by what means notification will be given to applicants. It has always been necessary to prove that clearly. If items are sent by recorded delivery, the Post Office receipt can be produced as proof of whether they were received. It is not possible just to say, "I did not get it. I live in a building with other people and someone else might have picked it up". That is not good enough. However, if someone is in hospital—this applies in many cases—it would be very unfair if their representations could not be heard simply because they were outside the strict time limit. I support the amendments.

Lord Borrie: I find it difficult to understand how, under Clause 18(2), any licensing authority worthy of its name can be expected to have to grant a licence except when there are representations. The whole thing is dependent on representations. I do not need to elaborate on the narrow way in which those representations must be made, because the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has made those points.
	Because the turning down of an application is so utterly dependent on representations and for the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and other reasons, it seems a most extreme form of unsatisfactory licensing policy if licences must be granted whenever there are no representations.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall respond to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, separately from others. The noble Lord hates Clause 4. Nothing we can do will convince him that Clause 4 is right. Any changes that are made to Clause 18 are never going to satisfy him unless we go back and change Clause 4.
	So far as other people are concerned, it is true that the Bill provides that if no representations are received the licensing authority is required to grant the licence with conditions attached that are consistent with the operating schedule. However, the whole process is designed to do two things. The first is to allow simple and uncontroversial applications through without a hearing. I hope that those who seek to represent applicants will support that, as it is a major deregulatory provision and a major move away from the unnecessary democracy—whoops! I mean that it is a major move away from the unnecessary bureaucracy and the 50 statutes that govern the hearing of applications.
	The system, which relies on relevant representations, is fair, open and transparent. It ensures that there is thorough and focused scrutiny of applications. The police, fire authority, health and safety and environment bodies and others will be statutory consultees on every application for a new licence or certificate, or variations on existing ones. Nothing is going through without consultation. Local residents and businesses will also have the right to a say in all new applications, and to call for the review of existing licences. Under those circumstances, who is being frozen out of the process? Certainly not the statutory consultees, and I suggest not the residents and businesses.
	To ensure a balance between the interests of the public and those of the industry, any conditions attached to the licence or certificate must be necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives. With the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, we have on the whole had agreement about the licensing objectives.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The Minister provokes me by his second attempt to isolate me from my colleagues. When it comes to the next stage of the Bill, he will find that there is widespread if not comprehensive dissatisfaction with Clause 4 and the public nuisance tests.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Let us wait and see. The objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm follow from much of what was said to us as a result of the consultation on the White Paper. They seem to achieve widespread support, perhaps not among the Opposition but among other people. We have to maintain a balance between the interests of the public and those of the industry. We have to ensure that the conditions are necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives. If there are objections to that, okay.
	The effect of the Bill will be to remove considerable red tape. Licensing authorities have strong powers to take firm action where necessary. They can add to or amend the conditions set out by the applicant in the operating schedule where it is necessary to ensure consistency with the licensing objectives, and attach different conditions to different parts of premises. In the past, licensing authorities have in some cases simply imposed a raft of standard conditions irrespective of whether they were necessary for particular premises. They have been aspirational and, to some extent, arbitrary. Our system is different. It is flexible, and allows conditions to be tailored to individual premises, but the conditions have to be necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives.
	I listened very carefully to the arguments put forward. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, talked about harassment or intimidation in order to prevent representations. That is a matter for the police. If there is any suggestion of harassment, the police must be expected to provide protection.
	I was surprised at what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said about Whitehall. These are not Whitehall directions. It is local police who make representations, local residents who may object and local authority officers who may intervene. This is a local system which involves local people and local professionals. If the local community is content, despite the notification procedures, who are we to intervene and say that we should be involved in limiting local authority discretion?

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The Minister really cannot get away with saying, as he just did, that we must not interfere with local authority discretion; those were his words. The point about the clause is that there is no local authority discretion.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My point was that we must not intervene with the views of local people and residents, local professionals and the local police. These are local matters and it is not true to say that Whitehall is dominating. It is for the responsible authorities—the experts—to make representations about the effect on the licensing objectives of the application. For example, with the crime prevention objective, the police will have a say and the environmental health authority will have a say in the case of public nuisance.
	I appreciate some of the motivation behind the amendments and that it is desired to bring back the regime to some extent so that it is comparable with the current regime. I urge the Committee to consider what would happen if the regime went back so that hearings were a norm and the presence of the police at hearings was a norm; we should also consider the complications of the current system. The system that we propose allows for uncontroversial applications to go through, provided that they have been checked to be in accordance with the licensing objectives. It gives full opportunity for those outside who may have concerns to make representations and for those representations to be heard. We do not want to go back to the existing complex regime.

Viscount Falkland: I do not believe that it is simply us on these Benches or those on the Conservative Benches—this is not a party matter—who support many of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Phillips. We share his concern about Clause 4 and the public nuisance test. We share it with people outside and with Members of the Committee on all sides. It sounds very good when the noble Lord says, as he did on several occasions, that we are making it easier to deal with simple and uncontroversial applications. I am not sure what a simple and uncontroversial application is and I should like to know what a complex and controversial one is in order to get a clearer idea. Perhaps we shall achieve that later.
	What the Bill may entail is surprising to Members of the Committee and to those outside—that is shown by our postbags and by reading the letters pages of various newspapers. We should not forget that all of this change is taking place—although we do not oppose the basic proposal—in a context in which 13,000 violent incidents take place in and around licensed premises every week. That is at the worst end. As my noble friend said, other matters do not constitute a nuisance in the understood way, as the term is used in the Bill. He used the expression, "to-ing and fro-ing". I turn to nuisance during the night; there I go again using the word in a wider sense than I should. Perhaps I should refer to inconvenience and disturbance to local residents.
	We come back to local residents. We must do everything in our power to protect the interests and right of local residents to lead peaceful and normal lives without a great explosion of activity because the new regime has not taken into account the serious consequences that may arise if licences are not examined and discussed and put to the test in the most severe way. That may sound as though we are going away from deregulation. But the whole Bill creates bureaucracy. The Minister says that it does not; but I believe that it does.
	Whether or not that is so, we shall return to this point. It is at the core of the Bill in terms of the probable effect on local residents when we have what is effectively becoming a 24-hour drinking economy. I have no intention of pursuing the amendment at this late hour; it is meant to be probing. It is a complex point. I know exactly where the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is coming from. I understand what he is saying and the clever way in which he attempted to put to us a simple profile of what will happen. But it will not be simple. It will be extremely worrying for many people. We must ensure that those worries are examined and, where possible, mitigated. I therefore reserve the right to come back to this point at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 176 to 181 not moved.]

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: moved Amendment No. 182:
	Page 12, line 10, leave out paragraph (b).

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: This group of amendments is so closely related to the previous discussion that I shall not need to go into great detail. It can be seen that the group consists of a large number of amendments. I shall say a few words but this is a matter to which we shall have to return on Report.
	There are other provisions in Clause 18 to which we object, particularly subsection (6)(c). That involves the right to object to a person who has been nominated as a supervisor of the licensed premises. According to the Bill, only the police will have the knowledge upon which such an objection can be based. That must be wrong.
	A licensing authority may already have relevant information about the nominated person. he or she may, for example, previously have been a licensee or a nominated supervisor in other licensed premises or may have committed misdemeanours in regard to public safety which did not come to the notice of the police because the offence was not prosecuted or was not one that is notifiable to the Home Office as a criminal offence.
	It should not be solely the police who have the right to say whether or not a premises supervisor is suitable. It should be possible for a local authority, where appropriate, to use its knowledge. Also, in circumstances where a premises licence is granted, it is granted virtually in perpetuity and therefore it is important that the original granting should be correct. But Clause 18(9) stipulates that only the police will have their evidence taken into account. The same argument applies that it should be wider than the police; that other people should also have the right to make representations.
	I have many pieces of paper about this matter, but they are so complicated and the amendments are so massed together that it is impossible to put them all together. Some are consequential to others. The amendment seeks to ensure that an officer of the licensing authority is able to make representations about an applicant for a premises licence in addition to the chief officer of police where the premises are situated.
	The licensing officers of the council will be regularly inspecting the premises in the area. They are likely to have knowledge of any persons operating existing premises licences. We must take into consideration that the licences are not coming out of the blue to a completely new group of people who have never been in the trade or involved in any way before. Many of the people applying for licences will be known and will have a definite record, either good or bad, with the local authority of the way in which they have been conducting their premises.
	The need for local authorities to have a greater degree of control in applying conditions was debated on the previous amendment. If it is known that nudity is to be allowed on premises, a restriction may be desirable. The issue of children has been raised. A local authority might wish to limit admittance to people of a certain age; whether it should be 18, which is the drinking age, or younger is another point for discussion. There is a need for the right to attach conditions in such circumstances. The local residents would certainly want such conditions attached. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: I support my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. As Members of the Committee have said on previous amendments, this is an important area. Much representation beyond the Committee has been made to all of us in relation to Clause 18. There is considerable concern and unrest. It makes sense that those on the licensing authority should be involved as well as the police. They often have the ears and eyes of the local community, sometimes from a different perspective from that of the police. It therefore seems wrong to exclude them.

Baroness Blackstone: I will not return to the issues of Clause 18 that were addressed by my noble friend Lord McIntosh. I will respond to the specific amendments, which might help the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. They would strike at the heart of the Bill, which seeks a workable balance between the rights and interests of local people and businesses and those of licensees and the industry. It seeks to make the system as light touch and simple as possible while providing adequate protection.
	The Bill provides for statutory consultees, such as the police, fire and environmental health authorities, as well as local residents and businesses, to have a say in all applications for new licences, in applications to vary operating conditions and to call for the review of existing licences. We must remember that many of those authorities are part of the local authority; we should not see them as totally separate. Where one such body makes a representation, a hearing will be held and the appropriate conditions attached to meet relevant concerns.
	We want businesses to thrive and to see employment enhanced. We do not want businesses to be subject to unnecessary burdens or restrictions. That is why where no representations are made no hearing will be required. It is also why representations will not be considered where they are not related to the likely impact of the licence or where the same representations are made frivolously or vexatiously.
	Those who make relevant representations will, along with applicants, be able to appeal against any decisions to grant licences or club premises certificates, to vary licences or certificates or to issue provisional statements.
	As regards decisions to grant or vary licences or certificates, they will be able to contend that the grant or variation ought not to have been made or that the conditions ought to be modified. So that does offer a real say and a great deal of protection. The requirement that the representation be relevant is still central and offers the same protection to the interests of licensees and also avoids clogging up magistrates' courts with costly and time-consuming appeals which are not related to the objectives. They might be malicious or go back over ground which the licensing authorities have already covered.
	We are confident that those with valid concerns will find it easier than before to have a say in licensing decisions. It is of course important that the police and other enforcement bodies, as well as the local community, have a strong voice in the determination of applications. Indeed, it is essential that the police are able to object to the designation of a new premises supervisor where in exceptional circumstances they believe that the appointment would undermine the crime prevention objective.
	We have given undertakings to the police that these arrangements will take place. Where trouble does flare up the police will be better able to take the necessary action quickly and, I believe, with a minimum of confusion. At the same time I am alive to industry concerns that the procedures associated with the designated premises supervisor should not become too burdensome. Designated premises supervisors will be personal licence holders and will therefore have had to meet the requirements in relation to training. Therefore, it is right that objections should be limited to those made by the police on the grounds of the crime prevention objective.
	By changing the requirement that representations be relevant, these amendments would open up the way for representations from almost anywhere, leading to uncertainty for the industry, drawing out the application process and certainly making it a lot more costly. A major problem with the current system is that all applications for a liquor licence require a court hearing when in the great majority of cases that is not really necessary. This Bill provides for most applications where there are no concerns or implications for the licensing objectives to be dealt with administratively. That will lead to significant savings. It is not clear why we should go back to a system where all cases are decided by a hearing regardless of whether one is really needed. It is also unclear why the net should be widened and the requirement that representations are focused on the licensing objectives and are made for the right reasons be removed.
	The Bill gives local people and local businesses a stronger voice than they have had before to comment on local issues. It is transferring licensing functions to bodies with local knowledge and, importantly, who are directly accountable to local people. While ensuring a consistent national framework the Bill will protect local concerns and be responsive to them while at the same time ensuring that industry is unduly restricted or subject to unnecessary red tape or costs. In the light of what I have said, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for what she has said. I certainly hope that at Report stage we can reduce the complexity of so many amendments. I shall read what the noble Baroness has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 183 and 184 not moved.]
	[Amendment No 185 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendment No. 186 not moved.]

Baroness Hooper: If Amendment No. 187 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 188 to 190 because of pre-emption.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 187:
	Page 12, line 30, leave out paragraph (b).

Baroness Buscombe: A personal licence holder who holds a valid licence should not be under challenge under such a vague term as "exceptional circumstances". Exclusion by way of conviction of a criminal offence—more than 40 are already listed in the Bill—is sufficient to ensure that such a further test and obstacle should not have to be overcome. On what basis will a council decide on the validity of a police objection? The Bill reintroduces the vague fit-and-proper test in cases that, by their nature, are exceptional. The police will have sufficient powers through either the review process or powers of disclosure—which they can use when and if the circumstances that they fear are about to occur. The system should be and is robust enough to exclude the need for further powers. I beg to move.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: This is an extraordinarily open-ended and vague way of dealing with a problem that does not really exist.
	Is the person about whom the statement is made then made aware of it and of who has made it? Is the person left in ignorance and just informed that he or she is not to become a designated premises supervisor—or is he or she entitled to be told that a complaint has been made about them by the police and to be told the nature of the complaint?
	In a Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, keeps telling us has to be as precise as possible, this is a vague, difficult and potentially unfair clause. It would give undue power to local authorities, without the proper balance of the individual being able to know about a complaint made against him, who has made it and on what grounds.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am really puzzled by this amendment, which is the only one in the group that has been spoken to. It would remove the requirement on the police to give a statement when making representations about the specification of a designated premises supervisor on a premises licence, to the effect that in the exceptional circumstances of the case, it would undermine the crime prevention objective to do so.
	I do not know whether this was intended, but the amendment would remove the need for the police to give reasons for objecting to a premises supervisor. That is not what I heard the noble Baroness or the noble Lord to say, but that is what the amendment says. I should have thought that the balance that we have—where exceptional circumstances are needed for the police to intervene but where they have to give reasons—is the right way forward.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Are the reasons made known to the person about whom the complaint is made?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, certainly. What is the point of giving reasons unless the people to whom they refer know about them? They are not secret.

Baroness Buscombe: I appreciate that the Minister is somewhat surprised by the amendment. We do not necessarily want to do away with the power to have a statement where, in the circumstances of the case, the premises supervisor would undermine the crime prevention objective. I should have made it clearer that this is, in a sense, a probing amendment. The wording,
	"due to the exceptional circumstances of the case",
	is not clear. It sounds vague and broad and does not make it clear that a proper explanation will be given as to why the police are making a particular statement.
	I am grateful to my noble friend for asking what the words,
	"due to the exceptional circumstances of the case",
	mean, given the fear that the police might simply offer "due to the exceptional circumstances". We are looking for reassurance that there will be more clarity.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry if I was not clear enough. We are saying that we want the provisions for a change in a designated premises supervisor to be as simple as possible. We want to place as small a burden as possible on applicants and to make sure that it is possible for businesses to continue. It is only in the circumstances that I described when I addressed Amendment No. 154—and those are exceptional circumstances—where the police have good reason to think that a situation is dangerous that they would intervene. They would not just say that that was the case but would give their reasons for intervening.

Baroness Buscombe: I am grateful to the Minister for expanding the point. It is reassuring to me and, I hope, to the industry—which is particularly concerned about the matter—and to members of licensing authorities to know that it is expected that proper reasons would be given, whatever the exceptional circumstances may be. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 188 to 190 not moved.]

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 191:
	Page 12, line 36, leave out paragraph (a).

Baroness Buscombe: In moving Amendment No. 191, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 228 concerning the granting of premises licences.
	On coming to subsection (10) of Clause 18 I found myself slightly bemused. It states that,
	"a licensing authority may grant a licence . . . subject to different conditions in respect of different parts of the premises concerned".
	Can the Minister shed some light on the reasoning behind the measure? It seems strange that different conditions could be applied to one part of a premises but not to the other. I cannot think of a circumstance where such a situation would be necessary or advisable. To take the matter to the extreme, would it not be possible to have different sets of conditions for one premises? If so, it could easily cause confusion and misunderstanding. I do not see why the provision described in paragraph (a) is required. It appears to me to be both superfluous and troublesome. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me to the contrary. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I hope that I can give the noble Baroness the reassurance she seeks. The Bill is all about flexibility. I refer to the flexibility that may be necessary when a licensee wants to keep his main premises open beyond 11 o'clock at night. However, he also has a beer garden which is an enormously social place in which to be at lunch time and perhaps also in the early evening. However, it is not such a sociable place, certainly not for neighbours, at two o'clock in the morning. Therefore, the granting of the licence may be dependent upon the licensee making it clear that service will cease in the beer garden and that it will not be open for the consumption of liquor after 11 p.m. However, the hostelry itself may be able to continue serving after 11 without causing any disturbance to others.
	Another example in the context of licensed premises in general might be a licensed bar in a cinema. One would not want young people to be present in such a bar very late at night. However, they should clearly have access to the cinema if a late film is being shown. The restriction would be placed on their ability to patronise the bar but not to attend the film. Those are two instances where we argue for flexibility. We believe that that flexibility should be sustained. I hope that the noble Baroness accepts those examples.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Is the measure capable of being interpreted to decree that, if one has a pub with two bars, one could have 100 people in one and 150 in the other, that that would be a requirement of the licensing authority and that the premises licence or the designated premises supervisor would have to ensure that that balance was maintained? If that is the case, unless guidance is given about how the measure is to be implemented, a local authority could make the operation of licensed premises almost impossible by imposing a series of balancing requirements with regard to the capacity and utilisation of different bars. Can paragraph (a) of subsection (10) be used in that way? Potentially it would be complex and difficult to administer from the licence holder's point of view.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I hear what the noble Lord suggests. I do not think that it is conceived that two rooms in the same hostelry should be subject to different considerations in quite that way. But my illustrations surely are the basis on which we would need flexibility. That flexibility needs to be interpreted in accordance with common sense. I was seeking to illustrate that there are areas within the framework of the measure where we would need the necessary flexibility.
	The noble Lord is right about two dissimilar rooms in terms of capacity. If one room is used for one purpose—and which clearly has a vastly greater capacity than the other—the licensing authority would say that there is a certain number related to that and a different number for a much smaller room. But we are not looking to make these issues intensely complex, we are trying to create the flexibility within which intelligent decisions can be made in order to meet the four broad objectives of the measure.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his reply. I like the idea of flexibility. I am sure I speak for all Members of the Committee in relation to the need for flexibility. I welcome the intervention of my noble friend Lord Hodgson. As to the example that the Minister gave with regard to shutting off the beer garden at 11 o'clock at night, I cannot imagine being the barmaid who will have to push everyone out of the garden and into the bar and so on. It will be quite difficult to implement that in practice. That said, we welcome the need for flexibility. We welcome the examples. Certainly, we will think about what the Minister has said. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 18 agreed to.

Lord Harris of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 191A:
	After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
	"POLICE REPRESENTATIONS
	(1) Where representations are made by the chief officer of police for a police area in which the premises are situated and where those representations contain a statement that, due to the exceptional circumstances of the case, he is satisfied that extra policing costs, which in his opinion will be significant, will be incurred as a likely effect of the grant of a premises licence, the licensing authority must take such of the steps mentioned in subsection (2) as it considers necessary.
	(2) The steps are—
	(a) to grant the licence subject to the condition mentioned in subsection (3),
	(b) to exclude from the scope of the licence any of the licensable activities to which the application refers,
	(c) to reject the application.
	(3) The condition is that every year the holder of the premises licence granted in accordance with subsection (2)(a) shall pay to the police authority for the area in which the premises are situated a sum to be determined by the licensing authority to defray the costs of policing referred to in the representations made under subsection (1)."

Lord Harris of Haringey: In moving Amendment No. 191A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 247A, 441A and 441B. My reason for tabling these amendments stems from my experience over the past two and a half years as chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority. I declare that as an interest. During that time I have spent a great deal of time visiting every London borough to hear how policing issues are working out and what particular problems and difficulties may arise.
	In an enormous variety of parts of London the issue of policing implications for licensed premises emerges as a significant problem. That is the reason for the amendment. Amendment No. 191A is designed to give the police an opportunity to make representations to the licensing authority to the effect—this would not be a routine matter, it would be intended to be flexible and to be an alternative to objecting to the grant of a licence—that, because of the exceptional circumstances of a particular application, there would be extra policing costs, and that those extra policing costs would be likely to be significant.
	If such a representation were made—and only if—the licensing authority would be required to consider it. It would then have discretion as to whether to proceed and to place as a condition on the licence that the holder of the premises licence should pay an annual sum each year to the police authority to defray the costs of additional policing. The remaining amendments are designed to ensure that the process would allow an appeals process. If people felt that the licensing authority had acted inappropriately in response to representations, there would be a mechanism for an appeals process and also a mechanism for review at a later stage.
	I believe that there is widespread concern in London, and more generally around the country, about specific licensed premises—I refer not to licensed premises in general but to some individual ones—either because of what the licensee hopes will happen in those clubs or because of the number of people likely to attend. The concern could be about the way people are likely to behave inside and outside or about the way in which premises are managed or are likely to be managed.
	Quite recently the Greater London Assembly, of which I am a Member, held hearings on 24-hour licensing. Members of the Association of London Government, among others, presented evidence to an all-party delegation. There was concern that there would be insufficient police resources to cope with any anticipated increase in disturbances, resulting from the proposed reforms. That was expressed in terms of the volume of policing needed at one location and the spread of that resource throughout the night. That is a concern, I suspect, shared around the country. It was thought that that would require the police authority to re-think its policing priorities and objectives to ensure that additional policing was available. That would mean police resources diverted from other functions.
	Later on in the inquiry the deputy assistant commissioner responsible for the Westminster area presented evidence. He highlighted again the point that if there is a rise in the number of licensed premises, there will be a commensurate rise in disorder which will skew resources to deal with that. If there is a plan to say that this is going to be a place, as he said, that has a huge number of licensed premises, then we need to think how we will fund public services to cope with that. If someone comes in to make a legitimate profit, how do we fund the policing that might be needed?
	Officers may be taken away from a housing estate where they are sorely needed in order to go to police late-night drunks. He cited a number of examples where holders of licensed premises voluntarily make a contribution to policing costs. The problem is that that is a voluntary requirement. It is not something that the irresponsible licence holders will necessarily do; nor is there necessarily any agreement about the level of contributions.
	For those who may think that this issue applies only to central London, I was particularly taken by representations received from my honourable friend the Member of Parliament for Hornchurch about the problems faced in Havering. The borough does not have a high level of policing resources and, by and large, does not need them. With the number of licensed club premises in Romford Town—I use this as an example—the vision that he conjured up was of large numbers of highly excited young Essex girls and boys congregating in Romford town centre in the early hours of the morning. This clearly presents issues which require a considerable policing input into a borough which, by and large, does not have a very large policing resource.
	Where exceptional policing costs are likely to be incurred through a licence application there should be some arrangement whereby, as a condition of such a licence, the police authority receives a contribution towards those costs. I beg to move.

Lord Avebury: I agree with the noble Lord. There should be some provision of this kind. But he is talking about one aspect of additional costs imposed by the late-night economy. It could be extended to other areas such as the effect on health, street cleaning, graffiti and all the things associated with the presence of large numbers of young people in an area where they are not particularly well supervised.
	With regard to policing in central London, when I recently had the privilege of visiting West End Central and Charing Cross police districts with the chief inspector, I was told how resources were provided. In the case of Charing Cross, officers were asked to volunteer for permanent night duty instead of the several nights on, several nights off, they had been working previously. It was found that that system was much more acceptable to the officers concerned and that, by having 13 officers on duty all night, they were able to provide a far more effective service. Absence due to sickness among the officers concerned went right down, as the Committee may imagine. When they did not suffer jet lag twice a week they were much more likely to remain on the job.
	I congratulate the police on the way they have coped with some of the problems in central London—but at severe cost, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, mentioned. That will be the case in every area where we have the late-night economy. Inevitably, the more premises are open throughout the night, the more police officers will be required and the higher will be the cost imposed.
	When I asked the Minister about the levels of crime in the Charing Cross and West End Central police districts on December 19th, she said, at cols. 784-5, that she would be cautious as a social scientist about connecting any differentials shown by the analysis for which I asked with late-night drinking because many other factors entered the causation of violent crime. Ideally, what would be useful—I have written to the Minister to suggest this—would be to consider figures relating to a variety of police districts in which there is a concentration of late-night drinking establishments to ensure that there are no local variables peculiar to the West End Central and Charing Cross areas. When the Minister comes to make the inquiries she promised me, I should be grateful if she widens their scope accordingly.
	The Minister went on to discuss drunkenness in particular. That is an extremely bad guide to the level of offences associated with the late-night economy because it is so closely connected with the propensity of the police to arrest people for that offence. The figures in Scotland show that clearly. In 1979, there were 13,626 drunkenness offenders; in 1999, there were 478. As a matter of common observation, drunkenness has not been virtually eliminated in Scotland during that period. There is clearly more of it than there was.
	So either the offenders are not being charged at all or, when they commit offences, they are charged not with drunkenness but with some other crime. However, the Scottish figures have been used to "prove" the success of extended opening. The English and Welsh figures show a similar pattern, although not quite so dramatic. It is manifestly absurd to claim that there is less drunkenness in 2000 than there was in 1997, as I am sure the Minister would be the first to acknowledge.
	Wherever we have the late-night economy, large increases in police costs will be associated with it. I do not understand why the entertainment industry, which will make vast profits from the extension of drinking hours, should not cough up a little of that money to help the police. I would go much further than the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I would have a levy on the industry to make it pay for all the costs that it imposes on the community—such as street cleaning and the large increase in the number of casualties in the accident and emergency departments of our hospitals. I am happy to support the noble Lord's limited demand in the hope that it will open up the discussion of all those other areas.

Baroness Blackstone: My starting point is that the Government want to see the police properly resourced. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary confirmed as recently as 5th December a significant investment in the police. Policing will receive a 6.2 per cent increase in funding for the year 2003–2004 and at least a 4 per cent increase in the two years after that. That will allow an increase in police officer strength to 132,500 officers.
	Against that background, we have a number of concerns about what these amendments would mean. First, it is not confined to premises selling only alcohol. It covers every form of premises to which a premises licence might apply. For example, it covers concert halls, theatres and cinemas, as well as pubs and night-clubs. It is very sweeping in its potential impact.
	Noble Lords may recall that prior to the introduction of the Police Reform Bill in the last Session of Parliament, the Home Office published a White Paper for public consultation on the issue of police reform. It included the idea of schemes by which certain entertainment outlets might agree to make voluntary payments to the police for the disproportionate costs of policing associated with their premises. We fully support such schemes.
	But there is a great deal of difference between voluntary and compulsory schemes. Compulsory schemes could drive a major wedge between the police and the industry at a time when we need them to work together and with others in partnership to defeat crime and anti-social behaviour. Certainly, there would need to be very widespread public consultation on this issue before we could agree to take it forward.
	The financial impact on the industry would also have to be carefully analysed. The hospitality and leisure industry is a major part of the wider tourism industry. The well-being of this industry is important to our economy. Since 1997, it has provided one in four of all new jobs created in the UK and one in five that have been created in pubs and bars.
	We should also recognise that this would be an additional tax on industry by another name. Under the terms of the amendments, it would be a tax for the benefit of police authorities imposed by the licensing authority and not by the Government with the consent of Parliament. The phrase "no taxation without representation" could come back to haunt us.
	Sales of alcohol in this country exceed £25 billion each year. More than £12 billion in alcohol duty and VAT is therefore generated annually. It is paid by the customers of entertainment outlets who cause the alleged policing problems. Those customers are also paying income and local tax, which can be added to the duty and VAT that I have already mentioned. The more people attending licensed premises, the more alcohol being consumed, the more tax that will be paid.
	The industry is also paying normal taxation falling on businesses, which also helps pay for the costs of policing, and is entitled to question these amendments.
	This is a very complex matter and I would be instinctively against allowing the potential for such blanket charges. However, there may be a case—I put it no higher than that—for a court power to make an order requiring payment to the police where convictions have been obtained for permitting disorder on licensed premises. That would not be a tax but a penalty incurred and applied in appropriate circumstances by a court. Again, I do not think that we should venture down that road without consultation on the issue. In these circumstances, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Harris of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his comments. I am well aware that other services are also affected by this. Indeed, Deputy Commissioner Trotter, in his remarks, highlighted the problems of toilets, refuse collection and so forth. I am also aware of the permanent night duty experiments in the Charing Cross area, which have had a beneficial effect.
	I am somewhat perplexed by the responses that I have received from the Minister. Yes, of course there will be, and there is, a growth in police numbers. Yes, of course the amendment applies to every type of premises; it was intended to do so. There are extra burdens on the police in terms of very large venues—such as concert halls, from rock concerts, film premieres, and so forth. There are costs in regard to policing outside football clubs which would also be picked up as part of this.
	The point is that such a provision would provide an opportunity for the exceptional cases or the areas where there are real problems to be picked up on the basis of representations by the police and then to be determined by a licensing authority—which under Bill's proposals will be democratically elected; so the argument that there is no taxation without representation is clearly spurious.
	My noble friend made the point that it would be much better to have a voluntary arrangement rather than a compulsory one. Of course it is much better if those who cause the most problems are happy to volunteer to make a contribution. But I suspect that if one asks the communities around the various types of establishments that we have been talking about, one will find that it is those who are least responsible who cause the most problems and who are the least likely to enter into voluntary agreements. For those reasons, I believe that it is necessary to include a provision which can, under certain circumstances, require such licence holders to make some kind of contribution.
	Similarly, I am not convinced about the argument that the amendment could create a wedge between the police and the industry. A wedge is created at present by irresponsible licence holders who do not enter into discussions.
	The fundamental problem that I have is this: yes, of course this proposal could be interpreted as a tax; but it is proposed that the circumstances should be exceptional; and that the discretion would be exercised by an elected authority. That point deals with the argument that there is no taxation without representation. In any event, taxation agreed by Parliament would necessarily apply across the country.
	An issue that arises in regard to many of these establishments is that they are very localised. Havering is a low crime borough, but the problems of Romford town centre and of the clubs in Romford are extreme, and other suburbs have to deal with similar issues. The problems of Westminster are the result of a concentration of licensed premises in the centre of London.
	I was interested in my noble friend's comments about the possibility of imposing a court penalty. If she is saying that the matter could be returned to at a later stage, I am happy on this occasion to seek to withdraw the amendment. But I believe that we should not lose the opportunity of this Bill being before Parliament without trying to get some resolution on these matters. While I accept that there should be consultation on the principle, I suspect that if one asks most of the communities in the areas close to the licensed premises referred to, they would want to see a proper financial contribution being made to cover the extra costs—particularly the policing costs—associated with such premises.
	Subject to those remarks, and in the hope that my noble friend will consider these matters further, and perhaps also consider further the remarks that she has made about court penalties, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 19 [Mandatory conditions where licence authorises supply of alcohol]:
	[Amendment No. 192 not moved.]
	Clause 19 agreed to.
	Clause 20 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 193 not moved.]
	Clause 21 [Prohibited conditions: plays]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 194:
	Page 13, line 26, after "plays" insert "or adult entertainments"

Baroness Buscombe: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 195 and 196.
	Clause 21 deals with the conditions that may be attached to a premises licence which authorises the performance of plays. The clause states that no condition may be attached to the licence in respect of the nature of the play to be performed. It is only on the grounds of public safety that conditions may be added to the licence.
	My amendment seeks to make the point that plays and performances in a licensed venue may well include what I have described as "adult entertainments"—that is, lap dancing and other sexually explicit shows. When we discussed the issue of unrestricted access for children, it became clear that many of us shared the fear that children might have access to licensed venues that put on such performances. These amendments seek to provoke a response from the Minister. Subsection (1) does not allow any conditions as to the nature of the play in licensed premises to be added to the licence. Perhaps that should be rethought. One would suppose that strip joints might merit a different set of conditions from a community hall that might like to stage a play. If adult entertainment is to be provided in a licensed venue, surely the licensing authority should be able to impose conditions on the licence. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I accept the fact that the clause does not address every form of entertainment that we may think is in questionable taste, but it is clear what we are seeking to achieve. The clause carries forward a provision that appears in Section 1(2) of the Theatres Act 1968. The aim is straightforward—to prevent licensing authorities from attaching conditions that relate to the nature of the play to be performed or the manner of its performance, except when that is justified as a matter of public safety.
	The issue that we emphasise is that the Bill does not seek to interfere or intervene in all manner of activities that are better left to other regimes of regulation or left unregulated altogether. The more mature Members of the House recall the situation before 1968 and the attempts at censorship of plays. We remember the extreme difficulties that that created in so many ways, by bringing the law into great disrepute. We would not want to go back to that situation in a licensing measure, or to recreate censorship that has long since ceased.
	I recognise the intent behind the noble Baroness's amendment, but emphasise the fact that strip joints, lap dancing and other activities are covered by other restrictions on licensing. We are not prepared to accept a restriction in this measure that would reintroduce censorship of plays in this country. That is why the clause is drafted as it is.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I am not sure whether I succeeded in provoking him. However, as long as the issue of unrestricted access for children remains in the Bill, I shall continue to attempt to provoke the Minister during the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House. On that basis, for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 195 and 196 not moved.]
	Clause 21 agreed to.

Lord Grocott: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at fourteen minutes past ten o'clock.